Climate Modeling Proves Global Warming

Many folks have taken to Global Warming, which by definition means the planet is warming due to CO2 from man-made emissions. If the planet were warming from any other source, it would be by definition called climate change. Unfortunately for the Global Warming evangelists the planet may not be warming, in fact, as of late the solar minimum is at a record low, and the planet is cooling.

Still, the believers in this doom and gloom scenario say that Climate Computer Modeling proves it. Oh, really, because as it stands humans wrote those computer models and the algorithms that generate these futurist prediction. In fact, one of the biggest issues with the climate modeling is they keep re-adjusting them to get the desired resultant. There is something seriously fishy about that.

Personally, I do not like pollution, land, sea or air, or even all that space debris up there. That’s just proof of inefficiency, which is not worthy of human potential or intellect. But, computer modeling is only as good as the program and data. Garbage in = garbage out.

If reduction of pollution, let’s say CO2 is the goal then let’s dump the scientific pretendism and get real; let’s just say that the human race has agreed to reduce greenhouse gases on the planet caused from mankind and then start doing it. But to hold this Global Warming doomsday theory out as real is really not helping anyone. In fact, we are liable to change our entire civilization’s infrastructure for no reason whatsoever.

Because the reality is that the Earth’s atmosphere and ambient surface temperatures heat up and cool in cycles and they have for billions of years, and there is nothing that mankind presently can do about that. Think on it.

Lance Winslow - Lance Winslow’s Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/.

Solar Decathlon Lumenhaus Lands in Times Square! | Inhabitat

Virginia Tech’s sun-powered Lumenhaus was one of our favorite entries in the 2009 Solar Decathlon, so we’re thrilled to announce that it’s currently on display in Times Square, New York! This gorgeous self-sufficient house is features a …

Honda's Solar Hydrogen Station

Honda began operation of a next generation solar hydrogen station prototype at the Los Angeles Center of Honda R&D America. Designed as a single, integrated unit to fit in the user’s garage, Honda’s next generation Solar Hydrogen …

Solar Power and Batteries Pair Up

One of the most commonly cited problems about solar power is that it’s intermittent, meaning that it’s not always sunny …

New Jersey's #1 Renewable Energy Company, Trinity Solar …

New Jersey’s #1 Renewable Energy Company, Trinity Solar, Eliminates the Barriers for Homeowners to ‘Go Solar‘ With New Financing Solutions There.

GA-Solar To Invest $1 Billion For Photovaltaic Solar Project In …

Governor Bill Richardson today announced that Spanish renewable energy company GA-Solar will be building one of the largest photovoltaic solar projects in the world in Guadalupe County.

To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?

Sometimes, simple acts such as going to the grocery store can turn into a moral dilemma. Is it better to choose the piece of organic fruit produced on the other side of the country or the non-organic version grown locally, 50 miles away? Are the benefits of chemical-free shampoo worth an extra 5 bucks a bottle? Will I really be able to enjoy a cheap chocolate bar knowing that the growers of the cocoa beans were likely not fairly compensated?

As much as I’d like to say that I always buy the product that is environmentally safe and sustainably produced, in reality, that’s not always the case. First, the sheer amount of information required to be able to distinguish between products is staggering. You need facts regarding environmental impact, transportation costs, and fair trade practices, to name just a few. And there are plenty of misinformation and greenwashing campaigns out there to steer you in the wrong direction.

Second, of course, there are times when the high cost of an ethically made product turns me off from buying it. Even consumers with the best of intentions have their breaking points.

The thing is, companies who go out of their way to implement sustainable practices endure a greater cost of production. Sure, they can sometimes capitalize on this by marketing to conscientious consumers who are willing to pay a bit more, but the fact remains that in today’s system, environmentally minded production is punished.

On the other hand, companies who move their factories (and jobs) to developing countries with lax environmental standards and cheap labor are able to make products at a fraction of the cost and undercut their competitors (while shipping materials and finished goods all around the world and adding to our greenhouse gas problems).

The way it’s set up, high environmental standards in one country drive companies to relocate in places where it’s permissible to pollute in order to compete in the marketplace. Chaco, the Colorado-based athletic sandal company, is a prime example of even a well-intentioned company being forced to follow suit to maintain competitive pricing on their products. In fact, 95% of all footwear in the world is produced in China, whose poor environmental regulation and sometimes dangerous environmental problems are well known.

With current talk about cap and trade emissions programs, this phenomenon may only get worse.

So how do we even the playing field and reward companies for good business practices?

When I think about this problem, I keep coming back to an idea I encountered in a casual conversation with a stranger while traveling. I can’t remember his face or his name, but his idea has stuck with me and festered in my mind for the better part of a year. His take was that putting the financial burden of environmental responsibility on the companies just doesn’t make sense for the reasons I’ve given above. In a global marketplace, it renders companies less competitive than those that operate free of environmental and labor regulations.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to put an “environmental impact” or “ecological footprint” tax on the product itself?

Ugh, a tax?

Initially, I didn’t warm to the idea either. But think about it: adding a tax proportionate to a product’s ecological and social footprint eliminates the cost advantage of irresponsible production. All those environmental costs that are currently not included in our economic system would be factored in and would increase the price of unsustainably made products.

This, in turn, would make moral dilemmas at the grocery store much easier. Is it more sustainable to buy distant, organic produce or local, non-organic produce? The tax-adjusted pricing should inform my decision. Can I afford the chemical-free shampoo? Yes, because the price of its chemical-laden competitors would be raised through the environmental impact tax and eliminate the cost advantage of choosing that product.

The money raised from the tax could fund its implementation and other sustainable programs such as public transportation (high speed rail, anyone?) and alternative energy. Perhaps it could even make a dent in our gaping budget deficit.

Won’t this cost me money?

You may be thinking, “Sure, that’s a good idea in concept, but that will raise my bills - grocery, clothes, everything.” Well, yes, that’s true. But maybe if we see the true cost of the products we casually consume, we can make a more informed decision about what is really necessary to our lives.

Additionally, programs such as this often have the greatest impact on the poor. But this could be compensated for by using some of the tax revenue for need-based assistance programs.

Regardless, running an economic system on the assumption of infinite resources is fundamentally flawed. Currently, environmental impacts such as air pollution, water pollution, and deforestation are not factored into the cost of a product: they are considered “externalities.”

These costs need to be included in the system in a way that does not punish those who engage in sustainable business practices. By taxing a product’s environmental impact, it levels the playing field for the consumer.

Disclaimer

Of course, I am not an economist or policy guru. I don’t know how to implement such a tax or if it would even be possible (though compared to creating a carbon trading market, perhaps it’s not that difficult). This is only the musing of a concerned, intelligent citizen trying to brainstorm ways to make our economic system fit within the bounds of our ecological constraints.

What do you think? Would such a tax have a beneficial effect on our production system? Join the conversation over at our website!

Jill Mueller is a conservation biologist, avid cyclist, and freelance writer. She has combined forces with a good friend and dietitian to start The Barefoot Badger, a blog promoting healthy, sustainable living. Check us out!

Clean Green Engine Fox News

Intel adds solar power in Hillsboro | Silicon Forest - OregonLive.com

The new solar capacity is equivalent to the power used by 80 homes, according to Portland General Electric. The new solar power is being supplied by First Solar Inc., headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. …

In Latest Patent Filing, Apple Previews Solar iPod · Environmental …

In a move that may revolutionize the personal electronics industry, Apple has filed a patent for transparent solar cells for devices such as the iPod.

Solar Powered iPods & iPhones on the Horizon | Inhabitat

Apple recently filed a fresh patent for solar powered portable devices, including iPods, iPhones, Shuffles, MacBooks and even the hotly anticipated tablet computer. Exciting news keeps coming from the world of Apple and we like how …

NBA Team Goes Solar : CleanTechnica

You may think that putting some solar panels on a practice facility isn’t a big deal. But when you consider that this solar installation will save the team $2 million in electricity costs over the next couple of decades ($36000 in its …

Columbia Engineer Focuses on Affordable Solar Power : CleanTechnica

Engineers at the Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences are developing a solar water Huiming Yin, an assistant professor at the Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, is developing a …

Green Technology Revs

Who’s Greener? Yahoo Vs Google

Silicon Valley is known for both innovation and hype. Recently, this pool of innovation has extended beyond bandwidth to the protection the environment. Google and Yahoo, the search engine giants, are both headquartered in the Valley and have been making headlines by greening their offices, reducing energy consumption, and carbon trading. The PR motivations are obvious, but are the green benefits really there? To set apart the hype from reality, we have analyzed the green value of both Google and Yahoo’s headquarter facilities.

We looked at the ecological services provided by green landscape features such as trees and open space (i.e. grass). Grass and trees are pervious surfaces, meaning they allow water to permeate into the ground. Roofs, sidewalks, patios, and asphalt parking lots are examples of impervious surfaces, where rainwater drains into the public storm drains. Heavy metals, oil, and other pollutants are carried off parking lots in rainwater, which often lead directly to open water habitats, where fish, birds, and reptiles live.

In terms of ecological services, trees and grass have been proven to:

1.      Remove and store carbon from the atmosphere,

2.      Remove certain airborne pollutants,

3.      Permits rainwater to seep into the ground as opposed to draining into the stormdrains, and

4.      Remove certain waterborne pollutants.

Here is a look at how green Google and Yahoo really are and how the measure up against each other.

Google Green Report
Google’s headquarters, the Googleplex, covers 44 acres, nearly 50% of which is grass or tree canopy. This is an impressive paved to open space ratio. The grass and trees on the Googleplex remove roughly 2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.04 tons per year per acre. In addition, 530 lbs. of air pollution are removed per year (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter), or 12 lbs. per year per acre. It was assumed that the parking lot of the Googleplex is asphalt, and not a type of porous pavement, so the cost of managing rainfall runoff from the Googleplex is $4,474 per year, or $103 per year per acre. The abundance of grass and tree canopy on the Googleplex go a long way to offset the water quality impacts of the paved surfaces (mainly the parking lot). On average, the grass and trees reduce water pollution by 6%, as opposed to the entire property being paved.

Yahoo Green Report
The Yahoo headquarters, Yahooplex, covers 28 acres, a third of which is grass or tree canopy. This is a classic ratio of paved to open space for large office complexes in California. So far, par for the course. The Yahooplex removes 0.36 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.01 tons per year per acre. 114 lbs. of air pollutants are removed per year, or 4 lbs. per year per acre. In terms of rainfall, the cost associated with runoff is $9,219 per year, or $331 per year per acre. The grass and tree canopy help offset the paved areas with a 2.3% reduction in water pollution as opposed to the entire property being paved.

The final green analysis?

Google kicks Yahoo’s butt, largely due to the forethought, or luxury, of the Googleplex having 50% of its property surface providing green services. The good news for both Google and Yahoo is that over time, as trees grow, so will the tree’s canopy and mass, thus storing more carbon and removing more air pollutants.

Green next steps for both Google and Yahoo is to:
 

1. Install porous parking surfaces, allowing up to 80% of rainwater to seep into the ground,
2. Install green roofs, absorbing rainwater while reducing cooling costs and energy consumption, and
3. Planting larger trees on the south and west sides of the buildings to reduce cooling costs and energy consumption.

While we crunched the hard numbers to settle the Google vs. Yahoo green debate, this report illuminates the great opportunity that awaits these two Silicon Valley giants to harness the ecological services of green surfaces.

Chris Erichsen is a GIS Mapping consultant with the Erichsen Group, GIS and Mapping in northern California. He has over 10 yrs of GIS experience and helps many industries around the world apply GIS mapping technology. Learn more examples of GIS mapping capabilities.

Get Rid of Junk Mail - Go Green

Four million tons of junk mail is sent every year…at least half of which is never even opened. You probably are aware that your name, address, and spending habits are regularly being traded and sold on the open market.  By investing half an hour now, you can rid yourself of most of the junk mail for up to five years…and save a few trees while you’re doing it.

So here are a few tips that you can work on to lessen the load of junk you get every day:

• Product warranty cards do not register your product…that was done when you purchased it. They are used to fin out about your interests and your income for the sole purpose of junk mail.
• When ordering something on the phone, tell them specifically to not give your name and address to other companies for any reason.
• Any time you donate money or order a product or service by mail, write on it in large letters, telling them not to sell your name and address.
• When the junk come by first class mail, cross out the address and bar code, circle the first class postage and write “refused: return to sender”.
• Your credit card companies are the worst offenders and probably sell your name and address more than anyone else. Stopping them is easy; you just need your address and social security number. One call does it all for agencies Equifax, Trans Union, Experian and Innovis. Dial 1-888-5 OPT OUT (or 1-888-567-8688) 24 hours a day.

Lisa is a freelance writer with a specialty in Internet content and SEO articles. She has written thousands of articles, hundreds of ebooks and thousands of website pages and related content. She has also authored her own books and works as a consultant to other writers, Internet marketers and Internet businesses.

Professional wordsmith for hire: gamer, wife, mother, entrepreneur, published poet, co-owner of game guides company (http://www.liti4.com), public speaker and Internet business consultant. You can learn more or follow Lisa’s blog from her website: http://www.freelancewriter4hire.com

GLOBAL PULSE: The Color of Stimulus

Chek Technology Inc.

For People A Green Vocabulary

The international passion to protect our planet from the ravages of pollution and to preserve our natural resources for future generations has become an everyday fact of life. With international support by “green” political parties, consumer organizations, celebrities and politicians, the green movement has become a powerful force with an agenda that needs to be addressed by industry, politicians and consumers. Discussions about the environment are taking place in corporate board rooms, legislative hearings, and by consumers in supermarkets and department stores.

Can we fully understand environmental concerns and energy implications without a working knowledge of basic green vocabulary? Do we understand all the issues relevant to tax incentives for oil companies? Can we properly compare the organic and nonorganic products that we decide to eat or wear every day? In essence, to think and live green you need to speak and understand green.

Understanding some key green terms and their implications can help us evaluate alternatives between our planet and sacrificing aspects our personal lifestyle. It can help us decide how we cast our vote or spend our money or how we live our lives. A green vocabulary can help us reduce our “carbon footprint “. The following represents what is best described as a green vocabulary of definitions and commentary to help eco-oriented consumers make informed green decisions.

A Green Vocabulary for Green People

Organic identifies products made under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act. Organic production guidelines are established to use organic materials and practices that improve ecological balance. Organic production incorporates agricultural system components to enhance natural biological systems.

Organic Agriculture is an ecological farming system that promotes natural chemical and biological cycles that improve soil fertility and maintains a balanced and productive farming system. Any products introduced to this system for fertility or pest protection are of natural composition. It eliminates the use of harmful synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, growth stimulants or antibiotics. These essential restrictions can reduce contamination or pollution to our air, water or food supply.

Natural Fibersare “certified” organic fibers derived from organic agriculture such as cotton, bamboo and hemp.

Certified Organic Cotton is derived from organic agriculture. The cotton is grown without artificial pesticides or fertilizers. Conventional cotton farming ranks about fourth in the use of pesticides in the US. Several of the top pesticides used in nonorganic cotton farming are EPA recognized carcinogens. It takes 1/3 of a pound of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers to make one organic T-shirt disregarding the use of any toxic dyes (Organic Trade Association). A typical organic tee shirt is also about the same weight but without these harmful chemicals. Organic cotton is produced using conservation minded or “sustainable” approaches to crop production. Such practices help to retain and promote soil fertility and the natural recycling of soil resources.

Organic Certification is provided by various organizations. The most widely recognized standards are GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) which is the basis for the statement “100% certified organic cotton” used by many green companies.

Fair Labor Practices are not necessarily restricted to agriculture but generally support fair wages and healthy working conditions.

Fair Trade Certification “…guarantees consumers that strict economic, social and environmental criteria were met in the production and trade of an agricultural product.”(www.transfairusa.org).

Sweatshop-free describes the absence of manufacturing conditions currently existing in many countries, referred to as “sweatshops”. They are production facilities or factories where goods are produced cheaply by minimizing workers’ salaries, and increasing working hours. Proper environmental health standards are diminished, yet demands for high levels of productivity still remain. These sweatshops may thrive from corporations seeking to increase profits by subcontracting inexpensive labor.

Sustainable means conserving and preserving limited natural resources and energy supplies. It is connected with the term “recycling” when natural products are re-used like rubber (for tires, shoes) or paper/trees (for books, business cards, magazines etc.), or wood (for recycled furniture). They are made from or made into recycled, carbon based products. A good example of preserving our resources is Trees for the Future, a charitable organization dedicated to replacing and planting trees. Unfortunately, most of our energy production is derived from organic (carbon based) fossil fuels that cannot be recycled as compared to wind or solar energy. All of this is connected to our lifestyle and our “carbon footprint” discussed next.

Carbon Footprint is a descriptor of environmental impact. It describes the consumption of carbon based natural resources or the production of carbon by-products like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide or “greenhouse emissions”. It’s about lifestyle and the amount of carbon based resources we consume through transportation, climate control, manufacturing etc. Basically it relates to how much each of us consume in terms of natural resources to meet our needs. In general each of us should be committed to reducing the size of our “footprint” to sustain resources for present and future generations.

Eco-fashion is a general term describing organic clothing that has addressed the needs of the environment as well as socially responsible working conditions.

Eco-friendly suggests a product or process than has a reduced impact on the environment.

Low Impact Dyes refers to dyes used the manufacture of goods that should have minimal impact on the environment. Sometimes the term non-toxic is used here as well.

Green is a generally positive term referring to the environment, organics or even a green lifestyle to be discussed shortly.

Conscientious Clothingdescribes organic clothing has addressed environmental, ethical and socially responsible standards.

The Green Lifestyle

Green Lifestyle or Green Living describes a lifestyle reflecting a strong commitment to the environment. In addition, it addresses compassionate and positive thinking. It means choosing a life with charitable deeds and practices, reflecting compassion for the environment and others. Green living is being proactive and incorporates spiritual growth leading to ethical thinking.

Social Responsibility can be defined as accepting responsibility for others and taking action against social injustice. It includes meeting the needs of others through charitable giving.

Charitable Giving describes a sense of genuine compassion and reacting to it with charitable practices towards others.

In summary, a green lifestyle represents caring for the environment combined with positive thinking leading to ethical behavior and compassionate living. Ultimately, your deeds represent positive thoughts in action. The result can be a clean, safe environment and a better quality of life for yourself and others.

If you learned some green vocabulary, be sure to use it to make decisions and set priorities in your life. Think about adopting a greener lifestyle!

Bob Folkart is Vice-President of Live Life Organics, a company devoted to encouraging the living of a passionate life through environmental awareness. Live Life Organics has created a range of eco-friendly, organic cotton clothing from adults to babies. Every item of apparel displays positive inspirational messages promoting courage, hope and compassion and includes a plantable hang tag that recycles and grows into wild flowers. To view these organic products, go to: http://www.livelifeorganics.com.

Against Genetically Modified Foods

Genetically modified (GM) foods are not being found to be safe for humans, or for the environment. There are a number of reasons why there a growing number of people are against GM foods. Are Genetically Modified Foods Safe? The reason to resist the growth of GM food in our diet is that it has a negative impact on our environment; plants and animals grown organically are not distorting their genetic makeup.

And in the rush to accelerate the production of genetically modified foods, scientists are short cutting testing methods. Recently, the United States Tufts University, School of Medicine was involved in testing the effects of genetically modified rice directly on children (by-passing the usual practice of testing on animals). This direct testing on children created controversy and a formal letter of protest from 22 international scientists to the University; the protest letter has been made public through various social media. 
 
The letter protested the use of children as a breach of medical ethics code since children cannot legally give their consent (since it is not deemed to be informed consent) to participate in experiments. As Professor David Schubert, Salk Institute of Biological Studies said, “…it is completely immoral to feed this rice to children without proper safety testing … [i]t’s like putting a new drug on the market with no toxicology or safety trials”.
 
In defense of their position, the Golden Rice Organization issued a press release that states they “…us[ed] the correct Chinese and US government approved processes, the trials in China went ahead last year with the formal approval of their parents and the understanding of the children”.   How do children understand the impact of genetically modified food on themselves or the environment? It’s a complex subject that many adults have a hard time understanding. Also, how can anyone (parents, children, or testing scientists) understand what the long term effects of genetically modified “golden rice” are on the human body without prior study or testing? 
 
More importantly, will the overall risks of genetically modified foods over time out weigh the alleged benefits? Farmers have cross-bred plants and animals for hundreds of years to improve their products. Improvements to size, produce yield, taste, hardiness have been achieved through relatively natural means and within nature’s own boundaries; different species were not bred together.
 
With the discovery of DNA and a method of gene extraction, the concept of genetic modification was born. The intent of genetic modification is to create food that grows quickly, yields much, is resistant to pests, to disease, and to other natural events. However a number of scientists respond that the benefits are not worth the risks; genetically modified foods often become resistant to herbicides and pesticides requiring ever increasing amounts. There is the suspicion (still unproven) that pollinating bees have been affected by the increasing use of these chemicals and that both pollinator and predator species have been affected by the genetically modified crops (also known as transgenic crops) through habitat destruction and use of dangerous herbicides and pesticides. 
 
Since the introduction of genetically modified foods, some scientists are reporting that food-related illness has increased. The only published human feeding study confirmed that genetic material in genetically modified soy transferred into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and continued to function. What long term impact will these foods have on the population and the environment?  There are many more potential risks in the development of genetically modified foods. Animals that were fed genetically modified feed appeared to suffer from increases in fetal death, low birth weight, sterility, and more. The concern is that human reproductive failure and sterility or infertility will be long term consequences to using GM foods.
 
In the US, the Department of Agriculture reports that cotton and corn crops have been genetically modified to produce their own Bt toxins since 1996. Bt modified crops are insecticidal crystal proteins and are considered effective against crop-damaging caterpillars. The toxins are considered important for pest control and since resistance to herbicides and pesticides is growing, the sentiment is that these genetically engineered Bt toxins will help to protect the crops. The issue with the GM Bt toxins is that they are considered serious allergens; ever wonder why so many more children and adults are exhibiting allergic reactions than ever before?
 

The problem with genetically modified foods is that there is also a reaction for the action; unfortunately, globally, in our rush to grow food supplies, we have not taken the time to properly test and research the long term impacts and effects of genetically modified foods. It is easy to be against GM foods - our planet is at risk.

To read more about genetically modified foods and the healthy alternative - organic foods, please visit Is Organic Food Better?
Kris Bovay is the owner of Voice Marketing Inc, the business and marketing services company, with a difference. She is also the owner of a small business website, more-for-small-business.com and an organic food website, Organic Food For Everyone. Kris has 25 years of experience in leading large, medium and small businesses … and a life-long passion for healthy food and a healthy environment. Copyright 2008 - 2009 Voice Marketing Inc.

Gadgets of Solar

Antarctic Peninsula Climate

Antarctic Peninsula has been experiencing warming trends for over 40 years with an increase of 2-3 C, thus correlating with lower sea ice conditions in the Amundsen Sea and Bellinghausen Sea. Warming temperatures around the Antarctic Peninsula is changing the dynamics of the ecosystem. The rise in atmospheric temperature is causing increasing in melting of freshwater glaciers and ice shelves. Fresh water emerging into the sea counteracts the salinity within a regional area. Changes identified are;

• Decrease in sea water salinity up to 60 miles offshore
• Lower sea ice
• Decreased krill population
• Increased salp (open ocean tunicate that is reminiscent of a jelly-fish) population
• Increase in cryptophytes (single cell phytoplankton algae)
• Decrease in diatom phytoplankton
• Increase in carbon sequestering in deep ocean sinks
• Decrease in carbon availability in the food chain

The Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba), a small shrimp like crustacean is the most important zooplankton species associated with the sea ice and plays a crucial role in the Antarctic food web. On a regional basis the amount of krill appear to be declining in the southern ocean. There are definitely lower trends in krill population during lower sea ice years around Antarctica. Part of the rational for the population decline is that ice algae rely on the sea ice for protection and growth. The krill need the sea ice in order to feed on the algae and phytoplankton.

Krill occur in groups or large swarms. They are less than 3 inches in size and feed primarily on phytoplankton and sea ice algae. Krill filter diatom phytoplankton out of the water column and scrape algae from the sea ice. Apart from frequenting the sea ice to feed, krill in particular juveniles, seek protection from predators in the many nooks and crannies formed by the deformed sea ice floes. Krill is the staple food of many fish, birds and mammals in the Southern Ocean. The biomass of Antarctic krill is considered to be larger than that of the earth’s human population.

Sea- ice algae utilizes atmospheric carbon dioxide for its energy source, the same as plants do on land. Krill diet of the sea-ice algae and phytoplankton is essential for converting the carbon for use in higher animals such as fish, birds, and whales. This carbon conversion is a very critical role in predatory nutrition. Additionally krill do eliminate some of the silica from the diatom shells and carbon in sticky balls that sinks nearly two miles into the deep ocean. These cold, deep waters are able to contain carbon dioxide and prevent the gas from rising to the surface, thus immobilizing carbon that is not passed into the food chain.

In recent years there have been increases in algae phytoplankton called cryptophytes. Mark Moline, California Polytechnic State University, states that the cryptophyte population correlates with warmer temperatures and lower salinity waters that are produced by the melting of the freshwater glacier. Cryptophytes measure around 2 mm, while other plankton in the Antarctic waters are much larger and measure 15 to 270 mm. Along with the increase in cryptophyte population an increase in salp, a pelagic tunicate, population has also occurred. There are differences between salps and krill. Salps feeding efficiency is capable of grazing on smaller food sources less than 4mm, whereas, the Antarctic Krill efficiency declines on any food less than 20 mm. The salps compete with krill for the phytoplankton and thus decrease the krill population. Additionally the salps feed on krill larvae, which also cause a decline in krill numbers.

The warming trend in the Antarctic Peninsula is showing a pattern of increasing cryptophytes over other phytoplankton and the increase in the salp. This influence is due to the low sea ice and the lowering of the salinity in the seawater. Salps and cryptophytes do better in the lower salinity, while the krill and other plankton are unable to tolerate the increased freshwater regime from the glacier ice melts. This selectivity gives preference to the salps as the dominant species while decreasing krill abundance. During lower sea ice seasons the density of krill declines while the salp population increases.

Carbon sequestering into the deep ocean from the algae and phytoplankton occur by both the salp and krill. Both species eliminate the atmospheric carbon received from the primary producing algae by producing fecal pellets by the salps and sticky balls by the krill, thereby, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The salps though sequester more carbon into the cold deep ocean than the krill. However, the krill provides the most efficient pathway for carbon transfer up into the food chain. The cryptophyte dominated waters are less efficient in the food chain due to increased feeding by salps and the difficulty of the krill to utilize the cryptophytes as a food source. Migration patterns by penguins are changing, in part due to the changing krill population. Krill is a mainstay diet for penguins, and if the krill population changes, many other ecological changes occur with it.

Steve Bynum has worked at Palmer Station along the Antarctic Peninsula. He not only enjoyed the ecosystem along the Bellinghausen Sea but he has also witnessed the changing climate conditions.

Join Steve at http://www.climatechangenewsletters.com as we take a journey to discover the warming and cooling effects of our planet.

Solar Eclipse - January 2010 | Buzzy Bloggers

solar eclipse, annular solar eclipse, solar eclipse 2010, solar eclipse january 15 2010, solar eclipse january 2010, solar eclipse january 2010 india, january 2010 in usa, solar eclipse january 2010 time, solar eclipse photos, …

Harvard, WPU Add Solar, UNH Uses Landfill Gas for Power …

Academic institutions are taking a closer look at renewable energy sources to power their schools. Harvard University has just completed its first large rooftop solar power system, while the William Paterson University (WPU) is just …

Solar eclipse 2010: Zodiac predictions

The solar eclipse of January 15, 2010 is an annular eclipse of the Sun. The annular solar eclipse will start becoming visible in India from 11.00 am to 3.30 pm.

India launching rockets to study solar eclipse effects

“Five rockets are being launched Friday between 1 and 3 p.m. to investigate the effects of the solar eclipse in the lower and middle levels of the atmosphere,” Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) project director P. Ratnakar Rao …

Century's Longest Solar Eclipse on 15th January, 2010 | Annular …

The annular solar eclipse of January 15, 2010 is touted to be the century’s longest solar eclipse. This solar eclipse passes through the souther tip of India and is best visible from the town of Dhanushkodi on Rameshwaram island.

Green Technology Airline Flight Test

Mobile Car Wash Rules City of Oxnard CA Slated

The City of Oxnard, California is concerned with the quality of its storm water and rightfully so, as it has made great strides over the years. Oxnard CA is also home to the gateway to the channel islands with some incredible beaches and nice resort style living, and all that storm water leads to the ocean and those beautiful beaches. Thus, the city has chosen to start cracking down on mobile car washes.

This should not come as any surprise to anyone, as the city had previously implemented many programs to help clean the storm water runoff. They had developed a nearly bullet proof NPDES plan to insure clean water. The beaches never looked so good and this recent ruling to finish that job nearly a decade and a half later has come all the way down to washing of cars.

Our company had dealt with this issue in the late 80s and early 90s and helped write all the NPDES BMPs for several counties near there. The devices used are fairly easy to buy, and it really doesn’t take much, further it is my contention that all mobile car washes ought to follow the rules to protect the environment and there ought to be no excuses on that.

Indeed, over the years, we’ve worked with many cities on this, in fact, one thing we did was join the committees to help write the original BMPs for surface cleaners in Ventura County, CA where the City of Oxnard is located. A mobile car wash operator should not only follow the rules but be part of the solution. Think on that.

Lance Winslow - Lance Winslow’s Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/.

Technologies For New energy

Clean Landfills

We’ve all read the stories about how municipal water systems in the United States are contaminated with toxins such as  lead, mercury, copper and even bacteria. In some parts of the country, stories of raw sewage leaks into fresh water supplies have made the news. And, people have reacted by drinking expensive bottled water as a supposedly healthier alternative to ordinary, inexpensive tap water.

City Water Supplies Are Safe

Of course, the truth about the safety of the nation’s municipal water supplies has finally come forth - drinking water from household taps virtually anywhere in the country is safe, pure and incredibly inexpensive. And, we’re learning that bottled water isn’t as healthy for us as we first thought. 

Get Off The Bottle

First there’s the plastic container, or bottle itself.  That convenient, plastic water bottle we’ve gotten used to carrying around is made from plastic material that contains cancer-producing toxins called phthalates.  These toxins actually leach into the water in the plastic bottle and accumulate in our bloodstreams.  Studies show that the concentrations of phthalates in our systems are increasing with each generation, mainly as a result of drinking water bottled in toxic plastic containers. 

Plastic is Hardly Boidegradable

These plastic bottles aren’t biodegradable.  Plastic throw-aways now represent at least 25% of the contents of our landfills.  And plastics won’t break down for around 10,000 years - some plastics can take even longer to degrade.  So our healthy-water myth has turned into a big health hazard.  What can people do?

A Nice and Effective Alternative

Fortunately, there are many easy and inexpensive alternatives to our drinking water challenges.You can easily install a simple charcoal-type filter system on your kitchen faucet. These inexpensive filters can remove up to 99.9% of heavy metals and other toxins that may (or mostly may not) be present in your city’s drinking water. And you can now buy a portable water filtration system that’s as convenient as your old plastic sports bottle, but the bottle is not made of toxic materials.

Cheap Filter Removes Most Contaminants

The filters that can be attached to your kitchen faucet are cheap (generally under $50) can be found at most hardware stores, reduce chlorine and heavy metals, and generally make your tap water taste better.  For example, the Brita system costs about $20 - 40 for a starter set, and $20 for each replacement filter.  It will filter about 100 gallons of drinking water and lasts for about 4 months.

Portable Filtration is the “Wave” of The Future

For about the same price, you can now get a 16 ounce portable water filtration system from Back to the Tap, which actually filters as you drink.  It uses a number 4 LDPE plastic bottle, which is the kind of plastic that doesn’t normally leach phthalates.  The filters are replaceable, and you can refill anywhere with plain tap water.  It can be refilled about 300 times, and that’s 300 disposable plastic bottles you’re not throwing into already full landfills.

Going green does take some conscious thought and careful planning, but it’s getting easier every day to go green.  In this case, you will be rewarded with better health and less plastic in landfills - and more money in your wallet.  Remember - bottled water costs MUCH more than gasoline, per gallon. So, save your health and the environment and tons of cash - by drinking water from your own household tap!

There’s no reason to poison your family and spend thousands of dollars just to have a clean home. Clean your house with simple and pure natural cleaners - and save enough money for a really nice vacation! Want to find out how to go green, save money and save Planet Earth? Click HERE to find out how being green can save you green!

Recycle Your Plastic Bags Green Tip

If you have not given up plastic bag for your own reusable bags yet, no worries, you can still make a difference! Recycle them! How? Well, there are many ways you can recycle plastic bags. We have listed a few to get you started. Use your imagination!

21 Ideas for Recycling Plastic bags:

* for filler when sending packages or when you want to store fragile items.

* use old plastic bags for liners in your bathroom or office trash can.

* to pick pet waste.

* use them as baby bib.

* arts and crafts. (off site link)

* reuse plastic bags over and over when you grocery shop.

* store wet bathing suits in them when at the pool or beach.

* dispose of dirty diapers when out and about.

* put hubbies lunch in them instead of a lunchbox.

* litter box liners.

* use plastic bags instead of Ziploc bags when possible.

* store holiday items in them.

* as a cap when giving yourself a hot oil treatment.

* make a kite with your kids.

* as a toiletry bag when traveling.

* shred and cut them to make plastic bag confetti.

* use them as gloves when cleaning.

* have your kids put them over their shoes when playing in the snow to keep shoes dry.

* cut them in to big squares and let your children finger paint with them. (under supervision, of course)

* send them to the recycle bin at your neighborhood grocery store.

* or…avoid using plastic bags all together and REALLY make a difference!

This is just small list to get you started. There are MANY ways that you can recycle and reuse plastic bags. You can also Google “recycle plastic bag ideas” and you will find tons more!

Copyright © Green Christian Network, All Rights Reserved

About the Author: Cindy Taylor is a Christian stay at home Mom who love the Lord and cares about God’s planet. You can see her passion and writing at her website, Green Christian Network (http://greenchristiannetwork.com).

GLOBAL’S WARMING