ice is a species?

I found an article today that I just find so, SO fascinating that I felt it was important to share with my readers.  How’s this for an introductory paragraph:

A different kind of ice is replacing ancient Arctic ice. The new stuff is qualitatively different. It’s thinner, darker, wetter. Worse, it may already be changing the local weather and the ability to grow new ice. It could even alter the oceanic circulation that mediates global climate, reports Nature. Oh, it’s bad for polar bears too.

I think it is important to note that while many argue there was more ice created in 2008, therefore the belief in global warming should not be believed and is just rhetoric, it is extremely important to note what kind of ice was formed.  In other words, multiyear ice is the good stuff.  It’s NOT being made.

The original article can be found HERE, via MotherJones

baby steps

So in 2007… I know it seems for away but data like this is always a bit delayed.. the United States had more births EVER RECORDED.  Not only that, but 40% of the births happened out of wedlock.  

That was the fact that made the news.  

Everyone was concerned about the immorality of having children out of wedlock.  But what about the ethical matter of having too many children.  Well, some scientists decided to really figure out the footprint of having a baby.  And, here you go:

 

 

• A mother and father are each responsible for one half of the emissions of their offspring and 1/4 the emissions of their grandchildren and so on forever or thereabouts
• Therefore, under current US conditions, each child adds 9,441 metric tons of CO2 to the carbon legacy of the average female
• That’s 5.7 times her lifetime emissions
• Translation: one child costs nearly 6 times your own CO2 emissions
• In the pessimistic scenario, each American child adds 12,730 metric tons to your carbon legacy
• In comparison, under current Bangladeshi conditions, each child adds 56 metric tons of CO2 to the carbon legacy of the average female

 

The bottom line is that absolutely nothing else you can do—driving a more fuel efficient car, driving less, installing energy-efficient windows, replacing lightbulbs, replacing refrigerators, recycling—comes even close to simply not having that child. All those good things still add up to less than 500 metric tons of CO2 savings. Not having the kid saves between 10,000 and 13,000 metric tons of CO2.

your butt might be a wee bit upset

but, it is for the betterment of the planet, for gosh sakes.  So GET OVER IT!!

We in America have this awful habit of wiping our asses with the most pristine of tissue papers… made from virgin wood, process with chemicals… just so we have that soft texture for the THREE SECOND job.  Yep.  That is the average amount of contact time of toilet paper to nibbly bits.

And that habit is doing more damage than driving an SUV, eating fast food, or owning a huge house.  More than 98% of what is sold in this country is toilet paper made from virgin trees.  Other countries, only purchase 40%.  Interestingly, Americans use more paper than any other country in the world: about three times more European and 10o times more than your average person in China.

What are virgin trees or forests?  Timber from an original forest that has not been previously disturbed or influenced by human activity. Many consider 150 year old trees virgin. Also, and most importantly, untouched, natural forests can store up to three times the carbon than those forests created in man-made tree farms and plantations. Plus, to add insult to injury, those untouched forests not only store more, but the carbon that is stored is never released, as it is with tree farms that are frequently logged.

In other words… stop buying Charmin or Cottenelle or Brawny paper towels even. JUST STOP IT… you really have no excuse because it is just the right thing to do.

Greenpeace has put out a very easy guide to follow about purchasing eco-friendly tissue. Download it, follow it, do your part to save the trees and the planet.

i’m doing my part

Last night, I watched the first two hours of Manufacturing Consent.  This is a documentary about Noam Chomsky, based on his book of the same title.

A main discussion point, and something not new to me, is that the elite controls major media outlets, which then dictate to smaller outlets what is considered important news. 

And then this morning, I saw this:

Climate Change Is Not Taken Seriously Because Media Is Not Highlighting Its Significance, Expert Says, via ENN

Dr Neil Gavin, from the School of Politics and Communication Studies, believes the way the media handles issues like climate change shapes the public’s perception of its importance. Limited coverage is unlikely to convince readers that climate change is a serious problem that warrants immediate and decisive action.

The research company lpsos-MORI found that 50% of people think the jury is still out on the causes of globalwarming. The limited amount of media coverage – which tends to be restricted to the broadsheets – means that this statistic is unlikely to alter in the short-term.

One reason I found this interesting is because of something mentioned in the documentary: the two leading newspapers are The Washington Post and the NY Times. These papers are known for their stance against global warming.  In fact, just last week, the editor of the Washington Post wrote about his disbelief of global warming.

So… if other news outlets follow these two papers as to what is a leading story and these two papers downplay the truth about climate change… there should be no surprise that the public does not understand the severity of what is going on.

It makes me slightly pleased that the NY Times may be closing its doors….

FLOW… a giveaway

The generous people at New Video contacted me to have two free downloads to give away, via iTunes for the film FLOW.

For those who don’t know… here is some information about this AMAZING film:

 

Irena Salina’s award-winning documentary investigation into what experts label the most important political and environmental issue of the 21st Century – The World Water Crisis.

Salina builds a case against the growing privatization of the world’s dwindling fresh water supply with an unflinching focus on politics, pollution, human rights, and the emergence of a domineering world water cartel.

Interviews with scientists and activists intelligently reveal the rapidly building crisis, at both the global and human scale, and the film introduces many of the governmental and corporate culprits behind the water grab, while begging the question “CAN ANYONE REALLY OWN WATER?”

Beyond identifying the problem, FLOW also gives viewers a look at the people and institutions providing practical solutions to the water crisis and those developing new technologies, which are fast becoming blueprints for a successful global and economic turnaround.

This film is incredible and should be viewed by everyone… water is a limited resources, possibly made more limited by the potential of privatizing it by larger corporations. This film explores ever aspect of water including the rights of all people to access to clean water. The group of filmmakers was even invited to appear before the United Nations to honor the 60th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights.

To enter the contest, submit a comment to this link… when you do, I get your email address that is unseen by others. I will randomly select two winners from the submissions in a week (2/26).

In the meantime, it is available for purchase on iTunes:

know your science

 

Not sure if you have heard, but the United Kingdom just experienced one of its worst cold snaps in decades.

The question is…. does this validate or refute global warming?

Many people use the argument that global warming must not be real, because if it were we would not have such harsh winters.  But many scientists feel that these extreme weather conditions are the proof that’s in the pudding, so to speak.

“Even though this is quite a cold winter by recent standards it is still perfectly consistent with predictions for global warming,” said Dr Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at Department of Physics, University of Oxford, speaking to the Telegraph UK.

“If it wasn’t for global warming this cold snap would happen much more regularly. What is interesting is that we are now surprised by this kind of weather. I doubt we would have been in the 1950s because it was much more common.”

The essence of this statement is that since we have a longer period of time between extreme weather conditions, like this cold snap, it is more likely that that global temperatures are increasing.  Especially since we used to experience harsh weather more frequently. Therefore, the winter seems bad because it is unusual.  

Another explanation is that only certain areas will have harsher, colder climates due to global changes.  The Earth and its atmosphere may always be searching for balance.  As we wrote yesterday, California and other sub tropical areas are expanding, making the regions more dry and hot.  This will effect air currents and water temperatures in the surrounding areas, which have an impact on the currents and temperatures in other areas.

So, as some regions get hotter and hotter, other regions may get colder and colder.  But that doesn’t mean the global warming does not exist.  

One must also remember that there is a big distinction between climate and weather.  Climate encompasses the temperatures, humidity, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological factors in a given region over long periods of time.  And, weather is a set of all the phenomena occurring in a given atmosphere at a given time.  Climate is usually described by tracking weather over a long period of time, and is influenced by specific latitude, terrain, altitude, and currents.  

Therefore it is a fallacy to look at an individual weather occurrence and use it to define climate.  Climate scientists look at the patterns of weather and determine changes in climate.  For example, an over abundance of hurricanes becomes a pattern and changes the definition of the climate for that region.  In the case of one cold snap, it cannot be used to define a new climate if it occurs one time.

The reason we are spending the time making this distinction is because it is felt that more and more people will use this to justify that global warming is not real, and they will use single weather events as proof.  If those who understand that we are indeed undergoing a climate destabilization do not understand the facts behind how weather occurs, they will be unable to explain the truth to those who question.

iron’t you glad we didn’t follow through

We have been closely following developments of  the ship that has been heading to the Antarctic to dump loads of iron into the ocean.  

About a month ago, researchers had discovered that by dumping iron into the ocean, may create an algae bloom, that would then suck up a whole bunch of carbon dioxide. Obviously, the idea of this working would be fantastic.  But many people voiced concern ranging from what it would do to the ecosystem all the way to was it even legal under international law.

Well, all of the discussion may not make much of a difference.  New evidence is emerging that the iron may not suck up as much carbon dioxide as originally hoped, according to the New Scientist.

In fact it may be 80 times less effective than originally assumed.  There are some cases in which bloom is limited because of too much iron in the water, thereby not working to trap carbon.

What this all means, at least to us, is that much more research needs to be done to determine the efficacy of such an experiment.

a thousand years of solitude

 

Research out of Boulder, CO is indicating that climate change due to increases in carbon dioxide is irreversible and will last 1000 years, according to the Environmental News Service.

The study was done by scientists with the NOAA, led by Dr. Susan Solomon.  The group studied models of allowing the carbon dioxide to reach peak concentrations and then completely halted the emissions after the peak. They found that the scientific evidence is strong enough to quantify some irreversible climate impacts, including rainfall changes in certain key regions, and global sea level rise.

If carbon dioxide is allowed to rise to 450-600 parts per million from its current value of 385 parts per million, and then CO2 emissions completely cease, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s North American Dust Bowl in zones including southern Europe, northern Africa, southwestern North America, southern Africa, and western Australia.

The data emphasizes that any carbon emissions in this century, essentially ‘lock-in” a sea level rise that will stay for the next 1000 years.  This research shows that carbon dioxide levels and the ocean work hand in hand to impact when happens on the planet.  Heating of the planet due to increase in carbon dioxide, creates an environment for sea level rising, which then makes it difficult for the carbon dioxide to escape the atmosphere.

forests are dying

 

The death rate of the most stable and resilient forests in western North America has doubled during the past few decades as the climate has warmed, according to The Daily Climate.

The study focused its research on Western states and was comprised of data from 11 scientists.  The conclusion: Western forests are becoming more susceptible to wildfire, disease and invaders such as bark beetles. Average tree size is shrinking; creatures dependent on large, old-growth trees will increasingly find themselves out of a home. 

And as conditions get worse, the trees ability to trap CO2 will get less and less, making them carbon sources instead of carbon sinks.

The study started in 1955 and track growth rates and mortality until the present.  The data showed that while death rates are increasing, birth rates are decreasing.  It also concluded that rising temperatures are the sole cause.

Unfortunately, this becomes a double edged sword: as more CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are put into the air, the temperatures rise.  As the temperature rises, more trees are susceptible to death making them unlikely to absorb more CO2.  As they stop absorbing CO2, more is released into the air and the cycle starts all over again.

it is real, you know….

 

A new poll done by the Pew Research Center shows a trend that, if continued, does not bode well for the planet.  When people were asked what they were concerned with in the United States, the environment was at the very bottom of the list.  (The top priorities included domestic policy and economy.)

The study showed that 30% of Americans feel that global warming is a top priority.  Protecting the environment had the sharpest decline to 41%, which was a 15% decline in a one year period of time.  It should also be noted that the disparity between Republicans and Democrats was quite large.  In fact, where 50% of Democrats felt that protecting the environment and global warming were a priority, only 20% of Republicans felt the same way.

These priorities are slightly at odds with the Presidents agenda, as he has placed the environment as a top priority of his administration.  However, many have high hopes that Obama can tie in conservation, efficiency and renewable energy to jobs and sustainable economic future for the company, essentially hitting two birds with one stone.

What this also is an indication of, however, is that science is not doing its job in effectively communicating the severity of global warming and the environment to the public.  While another survey of 3500 scientists all confirm the global warming is real and a result of humans (via CNN), it seems that the smaller percentage that claims it is false get more press and seem more convincing.

The problem is that if when those non-believing scientists are proved emphatically wrong, it may well be too late.  Many already feel that we have crossed a tipping point of no return.  The disservice of this news is that it can have the potential of making people lazy and revert back to bad habits, because they feel hopeless and out of control in the situation.  

The best way to solve this issue is to help the general public understand the science behind global warming so they have no doubt that it is real and their daily activities have a global impact.  If people know what to do and can track the positive impact that it creates, they will be more likely to continue those behaviors and we may have a fighting chance.

Next Page »