paradox lost

Many of the climate change deniers point to the Antarctic to prove their point.  You see, it is actually having an ice increase, while the arctic is suffering its worse losses.  So, John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey has set his sights on figuring out why this may be the case.  

And, in an ironic twist, it seems the hole in the ozone is the culprit… but it isn’t going to last. Weather patterns in the Antarctic have changed due to the hole as a result warmer air is blowing over the western part of the continent and colder air is on the east.

this makes me sad

I don’t know about you, but when I was growing up the scariest thing I had to worry about was earthworms on the ground by the jungle gym.  Or maybe, if there were a smog alert and I wouldn’t be able to go play in the pool.

We had is easy.

Kids nowadays…. well, this report just makes me sad:

No Kidding, One in Three Children Fear Earth Apocalypse, via TreeHugger

 

There’s a new bogeyman lurking in the closet, and this one isn’t imaginary. Us. One out of three children aged 6 to 11 fears that Ma Earth won’t exist when they grow up, while more than half—56 percent—worry that the planet will be a blasted heath (or at least avery unpleasant place to live), according to a new survey.

Commissioned by Habitat Heroes and conducted by Opinion Research, the telephone survey polled a national sample of 500 American preteens—250 males and 250 females.

On a sliding scale of anxieties, minority kids have it worst; 75 percent of black children and 65 percent of Hispanic children believe that the planet will be irrevocably damaged by the time they reach adulthood.

Can you imagine?  I can only think it is awful to feel that scared about your future and then have to be dependent on your parents to turn it around for you.  Most parents worry about grounding their kids and what impression that will leave…I laugh at the thought of some kid in therapy 30 years from now saying… “if only they had saved the world”… 

 

But seriously, guys…. if only we would save the world

room for journalists in climate change

In a report out of the latest meeting of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the number one sentiment was that journalists were not doing their job in getting the word out about the severity of this whole global warming thing.

In fact, Katherine Richardson from the University of Copenhagen said that a new strategy is needed for communicating climate change, one that sidesteps journalists, and the money-making organizations they work for, entirely, according to Nature.

But the author of the report brings up a relevant issue:  if the scientists don’t talk to the journailists, ensuring accurate data.. who will?

Authorities on climate change are irreplaceable in informing the media, whether they do so by being a reliable source for science reporters, by writing op-eds in mainstream newspapers or by contributing to blogs. With recent cuts in core science reporting staff, such as those at CNN, it is especially vital that scientists continue this service to society. It would be better still if they combined this with more direct communication through avenues such as blogs, which are becoming increasingly important resources for reporters and interested citizens (Nature 458, 274–277; 2009). But such efforts should be seen as complementary to, rather than as a replacement for, mainstream media. By embracing both, scientists may well see their messages begin to permeate more effectively.

Evolution of the Revolution

by Matt DeNoto

Before the Industrial Revolution, travel was slow and dangerous. Goods were made by hand. Everything took much, much longer.

And that’s because there was a limiting factor to all human endeavors. Back then the limiting factor was power. The only means we had to affect change were our own hands or the animals we domesticated.

So we did the smart thing. We found a better source of power. At first it was steam. Over time we discovered oil. Suddenly power was, for the most part, no longer part of the equation. Human productivity flourished. We were able to make more food, stronger shelters, and faster modes of transportation and communication.

Today there are new limiting factors to our endeavors. These new limiting factors include the dwindling supply of natural materials, the buildup of waste, and the strains of urban populations.

Now we must do the smart thing again. We must find better ways of using what we have. That’s what the Green Revolution really is. A smart reaction to our problems.

I imagine that one of the reasons the Green Revolution is so polarizing is because it is a response to problems that we ourselves caused. We chose to use a limited resource that causes pollution when we burn it for power. We chose to bury our trash in the ground, rather than find ways of re-incorporating it into the flow of goods. We chose to allow cities to become clogged beyond their reasonable capacities.

Why didn’t we see it earlier? Why have we not been self-correcting all along?

For one thing, we didn’t have the information. Sure, burning oil churns out nasty-smelling fumes, but the fumes dissipate and then they’re gone. As far as we knew, trash buried was gone for good and would never bother anyone again.

It’s only over the past couple of decades that our collective consciousness has really started putting the pieces together. And a lot of that has to do with a technology that simply didn’t exist previously. Computers.

The ability to store and manipulate huge amounts of data has finally shown us the consequences of our choices. Computer models are what tell us that the climate changes we’re seeing now do not line up with nature. They tell us when we can expect every oil well to run dry.

And just as computers were able to show us the problem, they are now being utilized to formulate the solutions. They are modeling more efficient batteries and cities. They are finding the ideal placement for solar arrays and wind turbines. Perhaps even more significantly, the internet has allowed like-minded individuals to come together and form plans of action.

Just as railroads and the telegraph helped speed up the Industrial Revolution, so our modern means of communication are building the momentum of the Green Revolution.

I guess the point I’m getting at is that the Green Revolution is not terribly revolutionary. And that’s a good thing. We’ve been through this before. It should be a comforting thought to those who believe we as a people don’t have a capacity for change, and it should be a wake-up call for those who don’t want to.

At the same time, there are those who feel we are not moving fast enough. It can be hard to look at the huge problems facing humanity in the future and not feel frustrated with it for the slow pace of change. To those people, I hope this little meditation has a calming effect. It’s only been a relatively small amount of time that we’ve known enough to see the problems we’re causing.

It will take time, but we’re now doing the smart thing.

this is not good news

So, where do I start.

I have written before about how one reason the polar ice cap is melting is because as chunks break off there is more surface area exposed to the water, which is warmer, which then accelerates the melting.

There is a “bridge” in the Antarctic that has been preventing a certain area, the Wilkins Ice Shelf from greater risk of melting, because it has been acting as a barrier.  Well, it broke away yesterday. Giving scientists greater fear that the polar cap is melting much faster than originally thought.

The article can be found via BBC News.

Here is video of the region…

lights out

In case you haven’t heard….

Saturday night at 830 is EARTH HOUR 2009: http://www.earthhour.org/home/

Everyone on the PLANET is being asked to turn off their lights at 830 pm, your local time.

I am inviting you all to participate in this once a year event!  Here is a chance to do something small, but potentially have a huge impact, to tell your government that you care about the planet and want… nay, DEMAND… change!

As always…. SPREAD THE WORD

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

opinion: carbon calculator, week 9

 

Week 9 in the continuing series of what is missing from Carbon Calculators.  

There is a list of the things that those calculators don’t ask, thereby eliminating them from their algorithm. These are the things that are sometimes the meat of the matter, so to speak. By altering these things, you could affect your true footprint in ways unimaginable and truly make our planet sustainable.

EATING MEAT

 

Earlier the number one easiest thing you could do to shrink your carbon footprint was alluded to… well, THIS IS IT.

Meat consumption plays a bigger role in greenhouse gas emissions than even many environmentalists realize. The production and transportation of meat and dairy, particularly if you include the grains that are fed to livestock, is much more energy-intensive than it is for plants. Animals, especially cattle, also release gases like methane and nitrous oxide that, pound for pound, are up to 30 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Internationally there is an additional cost to animal agriculture: massive deforestation to make land available for grazing, which releases greenhouse gases as the trees are burned and removes valuable foliage that absorbs carbon dioxide. As a result, according to a 2006 United Nations report, internationally the livestock sector accounts for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions — more than the transportation sector.

To summarize, in order to raise livestock you have to clear cut the area of trees, which are CO2 absorbers and must be taken into consideration when you map the footprint.  The animals are being fed a corn based diet, so all the damage done listed previosuly in the High Fructose Corn Syrup discussion, also has to be added into the footprint.  There are the transportation emissions.  The actual animal methane emissions, which is a more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2. Lastly, the meat is also making us fat.

Many people shun vegetarian diets because they view it from the terms of a 1960’s hippie. Getting over this stigma may be the thing that saves the world. Consumers may not have a choice about where a power plant will be built or the fact that they live in an area where they have to drive to work; but a consumer can make a choice about how much meat they eat. On study indicates that switching to a vegan diet can reduce carbon emissions by 6%.

ok, women. here’s one for you

So, I started looking at this article from Australia because of the relationship of climate change and over-population; things that I think are inextricably linked. 

However, when I got to the end of the very brief article, I was surprised by what Roger Short, a professor at University of Melbourne, had to say:

 

“Global warming is a direct result of human activity,” Professor Short told The Weekend Australian.

“The more people there are, the worse the global warming threat gets.

“So we have got to do everything we can to control human population growth.

“We haven’t given the women of the world freedom from the tyranny — and I do mean tyranny — of unwanted fertility.

“If we could restore that freedom to women, the world could breathe a lot easier and we could look forward to the future because women would sort out the future for us.”

So… I ask for your feedback.  Do you feel women of the world are trapped in a “tyranny” of unwanted fertility?  What do you think women would come up with that could change how our planets future is looking right now?  And, do you think he gave women a compliment, or do you think he created even more tyrannical rule by putting us to work fixing the problems that men have created?

Thoughts…. would LOVE to hear them.

 

And, for those who need the clarification, tyranny is defined:

cruel and oppressive government or rule : refugees who managed to escape Nazi tyranny | the removal of the regime may be the end of a tyranny.• a nation under such cruel and oppressive government.• cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control : she resentedhis rages and his tyranny | figurative the tyranny of the nine-to-five day | hisfather‘s tyrannies.• (esp. in ancient Greece) rule by one who has absolute power without legal right.

in the news

Here are some important news items…

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor, via Bloomberg

A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.  The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said. The center said real-time data on sea ice is always less reliable than archived numbers because full checks haven’t yet been carried out. Historical data is checked across other sources, it said.

MIT Group Increases Global Warming Projections, via Washington Post

 

New research from MIT scientists shows that in the absence of stringent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, 21st century climate change may be far more significant than some previous climate assessments had indicated.

The new findings, released this month by MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, showed significantly increased odds that by the end of the century warming would be on the high end of the scale for a so-called “no policy scenario” as compared with similar studies completed just six years ago. The main culprits: the cycling of heat and carbon dioxide in the climate system are now better understood and projections of future greenhouse gas emissions have increased.

The results also showed that even if nations were to act quickly to reduce emissions, it is more likely that warming would be greater than previous studies had shown. However, the increase in projected temperatures under the “policy scenario” was not as large as for the no policy scenario.

Climate change timetable slips as Obama backtracks on 2008 deadline, via Guardian UK

 

Barack Obama has been forced to slow down a key green objective of his presidency: early legislation to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.

Officials now concede that Congress is unlikely to pass such legislation by the end of 2009, a delay that could hurt efforts to reach a global treaty at the climate change conference in Copenhagen this December. It also frustrates hopes that last week’s huge infusion of green investment in the $787 bn economic rescue plan would give momentum to efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Presidential staff say America remains determined to play a leadership role at the climate talks in Copenhagen, but downplay prospects of taking steps to curb its own carbon emissions first.

Next Page »