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.

the man who holds the future

 

Who is Todd Stern?  And, why should you care?

We are coming upon a time when the global community will be reviewing, reevaluating and rewriting the Kyoto Protocol.  This is the document that each and every country will have to agree to in our win over climate change.

Todd Stern is the man who is representing YOU in those talks.

Hillary Clinton appointed him yesterday to head a larger group of people responsible that will be known as the Global Climate Change Envoy, stating:

“As we take steps at home, we will also vigorously pursue negotiations, those sponsored by the United Nations and those at the sub-global, regional and bilateral level, that can lead to binding international climate agreements,” Clinton said.  “No solution is feasible without all major emitting nations joining together and playing an important part.”

Todd Stern was a senior White House advisor under President Clinton, so maybe it won’t surprise you that Hillary Clinton appointed him to his latest position.  However, please do not assume this is just nepotism.  His credentials do justify this role.

Time Magazine has published some facts about Mr. Sterns:

Law degree from Harvard in 1977 and After completing his law degree, Stern served as an attorney for the Legal Aid Society for two years, followed by more than a decade working for private firms

Under President Clinton, he was the senior White House negotiator at the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, which called for the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently a senior fellow at the think tank Center for American Progress, where he focuses on climate change and environmental issues. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a vice chair of public policy for the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

“Evaporation and rainfall are increasing; glaciers are retreating; sea ice is shrinking; sea level is rising; permafrost is melting; wildfires are increasing; storm and flood damage is soaring. The canary in the coal mine is singing for all she’s worth.” — on reading the signs of climate change (Center for American Progress, May 28, 2004)

opinion: children are being hurt

I have written about this before, but it doesn’t seem to fully absorb into people’s minds.  So, I am going to use this forum to say, once again, that it is my belief that if you are not effectively and purposefully, environmentally responsible then you are contributing to the abuse of your child and the other children on this planet.

I have felt this for a long time.  I have made a point in my life to fully understand science, specifically the science and health behind global warming.  With each article I read about children’s exposure to chemicals, or increase in unnecessary diseases like diabetes and asthma, or the growing concern over food shortages or the decline of water, I make the logical conclusion that who will be most affected by these issues is our children.

I have spent much of my time on this site being polite; trying to educate and hoping that the public starts to understand the severity of climate destabilization. But that hasn’t seemed to be effective.  I used to worry about saying things controversial. I was apologetic to my friends with children when I hinted at my theories.  However, as I think about it more and more, I can’t help but think that this one is accurate.  

So, I decided to look up the legal definition:

 - Any recent act, or failure to act, on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or

 - An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

So, I ask you, do you not see how not doing everything imaginable to change how we are currently living is a form of child abuse?

The act or failure to act which results in death or serious physical harm.  

This site has spent a lot of time writing about phthalates, bisphenol-a, food shortages, water shortages, and air quality.  In many cases, especially the cases of toxic poisoning, study after study has shown the negative impact to children through premature cancers, genital deformities, male extinction, and the list goes on.  

If the result of such acts is physical harm to a child then I conclude that by using the products that contain chemicals that are known to hurt infants, you are abusing your child.

If a parent would go to jail for purposefully starving their child, then I argue by not providing your child with the best food in the present, and ensuring high quality of food in the future, you are abusing your child.

If you, as a parent, were to find out that a neighbor had done something inappropriate to your child, you would go after that neighbor with all of your force.  But, when your neighbor drives an SUV, polluting the air and creating a place where your child can’t live, you let it go by without a second glance.  You and your neighbor are negatively impacting the future of your child and that is neglect and abuse.

I can probably come up with an argument to prove in many cases that you are inflicting abuse on your child, or neighbors child, by your lifestyle.  It is quite pathetic that there is some level of acceptable abuse that we put onto the children of this world.  We have made a silent assent that convenience is more important than your child’s health.  We have made a silent assent that corporations can manipulate us into buying harmful products and that we will not hold them accountable.  We have made a silent assent that we will not demand that we, as a community, are accountable and responsible to future generations.

You are going to argue that child abuse is violent and sexual, by nature.  And, I would come back to you and ask you to read the legal definition.  Read it over and over and over again until it sinks in.  Anything you do (or fail to prevent) that causes physical harm or damage is abuse.  Being passive and ill-informed is not an valid defense.

By exposing your child to something that is toxic, causing physical harm is abuse.  By not investigating everything you bring into your home to ensure that it does not harm your child is neglect.

My hope is that I make you angry.  I don’t care if it is being angry at me, or angry at some corporation, or angry at our government or angry at yourself.  Be angry.  Anger is the place in which people tend to start doing something. I want you to get so angry that you start learning more and researching, in a way to defend your actions, because you will find that the science backs me up.   I want you to get so angry that you learn everything you can about global warming, find out that this is real, that we are in a dire position, and learn that every action you take is not inconsequential. 

I want you to get so angry that you prove me wrong, because in all honesty, I want to stop caring about your child, since you seem to not care about them.

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.

coral not doing well

 

Coral reefs are already in trouble with global warming, over fishing and pollution but now they also have to deal with a bacterial infection called yellow band disease (YBD), according to researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI).

The bacteria is identified by its “swath of pale-yellow or white lesions along the surface of an infected coral colony. The discolored band is a mark of death, indicating where the bacterial infection has killed the coral’s photosynthetic symbionts, called zooxanthellae. The coral host suffers from cellular damage and starves without its major energy source, and usually does not recover.”

The researchers are also able to show that the disease proliferates and becomes more deadly as temperatures increase. So, with thermal stress being greater, it follows that the pathogenic stress is greater, as well.  With rising temperatures all over the world, and the increase of this bacteria, the fate of carol is grim.

a modest proposal

Yesterday, we reported about changing out our current strain of crops for ones that are high-albedo.  Albedo is the effect created when short wave energy is reflected back into space, creating a cooler atmosphere.  

Berekely has suggested a simple proposal.. paint all the roofs white.  As we all know, lighter colors reflect light and heat, while darker colors absorb light and heat.  Our current roof top conditions only reflect 10 to 20% of the light hitting it.  The authors of the study references the mediterranean houses, where they are all painted white, as an example of how housing can help with cooling effects.

 

Buildings with air conditioners expend energy to cool down – energy that’s mostly generated from burning fossil fuels. On a larger scale, cities heat up more than their rural surroundings because of their dark roofs, dark pavements, and the absence of vegetation – an urban “heat-island” effect that raises the average air temperature of cities and their suburbs.

It is interesting that their research has shown that by painting all the roofs white, or putting solar reflective material on the roof, would be the equivalent of taking the world’s 600 million cars off the road for 18 years.

This seems like a simple idea, that if put in place, could have a immeasurable benefits.

this is not low-carb

This sounds like it is out of a science fiction movie, but if it is being recommended, it must be accomplishable.

Researchers are suggesting that  we could replace current crops, with a strain that is identical except for one thing: it reflects more light thereby helping to cool the planet. The scientists behind this claim that it could possibly cool the planet, in summers, by 1 degree Celsius, according to a report in The New Scientist.

It is called the albedo effect and it is when there is a reflection of short wave energy back into space.  It has been a benefit of the snow present in the poles, all these years.  It is thought that plants could create the same effect.  Light surfaces reflect light and heat, while dark surfaces absorb light and heat.  This is why the Arctic melting is such a concern.  As the ice melts, what remains is a darker surface: water.

That is why these scientists are encouraging farmers to buy seeds with a high-albedo component.  Sadly, they may have to be encouraged with a monetary incentive.  But the study shows that crop yield will not be altered, and in some cases crop yield will increase.

Seems like a win win situation.

how do we save our planet?

The United Kingdom seems to be a leader in environmental reporting. A very interesting piece came out of the Independent this week, asking the world’s leading climate scientists what can be done to save our planet.

The results are very interesting. Getting input from 44 people across the globe, would, obviously result in a wide range of opinions.

Below are a sampling of some of the more compelling, but going to the article, HERE, is recommended.

Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, London: I am not enthusiastic about geo-engineering, as to intervene on a massive scale in the Earth’s climate system will certainly have unforeseen consequences, some of which could be as regrettable as the problem the intervention was designed to address in the first place. This is why Jim Lovelock and I have been encouraging thought and exploration of means to “help the Earth help itself”; i.e. by amplifying carbon sequestration processes that the Earth already practises – in the ocean and on land.

Professor John Latham, US National Centre for Atmospheric Research: Since CO2 levels seem certain to rise for a long time, we think it vital to examine geo-engineering schemes for stabilizing Earth’s temperature for long enough to allow alternative, clean forms of energy to be developed.

Professor James Shulmeister, University of Canterbury, New Zealand: There is NO prospect of getting cuts in emissions of the scale needed to have a large impact on the problem. We need all the cuts we can get but we also need to engineer ourselves out of the problem. However, geoengineering on its own is NOT the solution.

Frank Schwing, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration, US Department of Commerce: I am more optimistic about global reduction efforts because the new Obama Administration in the US is poised to be a world leader in this effort, and because the public groundswell for such an effort is growing rapidly. Regarding geoengineering, we clearly will need some concerted and effective efforts to engineer our way to reduced greenhouse gas levels. However, I am concerned that the public, and governments, will see such efforts as a panacea, thereby eliminating the need for public action to reduce emissions.

Steven Sherwood, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut: At the present time, I do not know of any geoengineering strategy that I feel would ever be worth implementing. For example, the most popular idea (creation of stratospheric aerosols) would render us susceptible to a devastating climate whiplash if the program were ever halted. However, as a matter of principle I believe that such strategies should be carefully studied, their merits and defects weighed and discussed, and better alternatives sought. International agreements on how to decide on geoengineering need to be put in place before such actions are seriously contemplated, rather than after.”

Be warned: stinging likely

Massive swarms of jellyfish are blooming from the tropics to the Arctic, from Peru to Namibia to the Black Sea to Japan, closing beaches and wiping out fish, either by devouring their eggs and larvae, or out-competing them for food.

They are called ‘jellytoriums’. An example of how bad they are: in Japan one colony is 500 million strong and each more than two metres in diameter.

Though the reasons for the rise of jellyfish vary from region to region, in many cases we have ourselves to blame, says Richard Brodeur, an NSF scientist and research fishery biologist with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

In some oceans, climate change is fuelling their growth “because a lot of jellies grow faster and produce more young in warmer waters,” Dr. Brodeur says. In other places, overfishing of large predatory fish such as tuna is the main cause. A major problem, he says, is the introduction of new species – such as those in the Black Sea – through the release of ballast water from regions as far away as the Great Lakes.

 

Farming is also an issue: Fertilizer runoff causes algae to bloom, soaking up the water’s oxygen and rendering vast areas inhospitable to almost all life – except jellyfish, which “can survive in very low-oxygen conditions where fish cannot,” Dr. Brodeur says. The result is “dead zones,” more than 400 worldwide, covering 25,000 hectares, the NSF says.

The fix: introducing other marine life that are predators to the jellyfish. Aside from that, they are here to stay and growing.

Full article can be found HERE.

« Previous Page — Next Page »