Science
From Maple Syrup to Snow Pack, Global Warming Happening Here and Now
Published June 16, 2009 @ 09:02PM PT
Heavy rains are becoming more intense and frequent all over the country, although annual rainfall is decreasing in the Southwest. Both make it more difficult to manage water supplies for crops and communities.
Winter snow pack is decreasing, and melting off earlier in the year, in the West and Pacific Northwest. This is putting stress on fish that depend upon cold, ample stream and river flows for spawning; making hydroelectric power generation more difficult; and imperils fresh water supplies for people and agriculture.
Warmer winter temperatures have pushed the nexus of winter maple syrup production northward, from Vermont into Canada.
A new report released today by the federal government's affirms that the effects of global warming are being felt across the United States, affecting us in all sorts of everyday ways that may seem unconnected, but add up to big shifts in our quality and way of life.
As for how the impacts of global warming will intensify in coming years, there's a lot that's uncertain, because we don't know if human-caused emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases will rise or be reduced. Although no experts are saying that things will change for the better, they're united in recommending that sooner we cut human-propelled greenhouse gas pollution (from burning fossil fuels, industrial-scale agriculture, deforestation, and other causes), the better our chances of blunting global warming's worst impacts.
This report is a synthesis of research that's been developed and reviewed over the past decade in different sectors of the scientific community, and so contains no new science. But in taking a tight focus on how global warming is already changing the US (rather than taking a global view), researchers hope it will bring the situation -- and the need to act right away -- home to Americans, who generally feel that climate change is a problem happening in far off lands, in the far off future.
“What we would want to have people take away is that climate change is happening now, and it’s actually beginning to affect our lives,” said Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a principal author of the report. “It’s not just happening in the Arctic regions, but it’s beginning to show up in our own backyards.” (The New York Times)
In the Northeast, where I live, the annual average temperature has increased by 2°F since 1970; winter temperatures have risen twice as much. (Which is perhaps why my snowshoes have gathered dust in the basement for most of the past several winters.) And more:
Warming has resulted in many other climate-related changes including more frequent very hot days, a longer growing season, an increase in heavy downpours, less winter precipitation falling as snow and more as rain, reduced snowpack, earlier break-up of winter ice on lakes and rivers, earlier spring snowmelt resulting in earlier peak river flows, rising sea surface temperatures, and rising sea level.
These trends are projected to continue, with more dramatic changes under higher emissions scenarios compared to lower emissions scenarios. Some of the extensive climate-related changes projected for the region could significantly alter the region’s economy, landscape, character, and quality of life.
Living in a coastal metropolis, I can look forward to higher ocean levels impairing, if not destroying, the local sewage system, unless New York City takes a cue from Boston Harbor’s Deer Island sewage plant, which has been raised to avoid destructive impacts from future sea-level rise. We're already having more heat waves, and can expect more and worse flooding of low-lying areas of the city, and changing offshore ocean currents that in turn effect nearer-shore ecosystems (among other changes).
Experts from 13 U.S. government science agencies and from several major universities and research institutes, overseen by the White House Office on Science and Technology Policy, contributed to the report, online at globalchange.gov.
---
Image credit: National Weather Service
The Nuclear Alternative to Coal
Published June 15, 2009 @ 02:44PM PT
At least one voice close-ish to President Obama's ear believes nuclear power ought to be part of the nation's energy mix: Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, a physicist, educator, former nuclear regulator, and newly-appointed member of the Obama adminstration's President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
I interviewed Dr. Jackson last week for Grist, and came away intrigued by her sophisticated take on energy policy. What energy policy, you ask? Well, that's part of the issue: the U.S. has not approached meeting our energy needs with a comprehensive strategy for some time.
I asked her if, to slash the nation's climate-disrupting greenhouse gas emissions as far and fast as possible, we ought to plan on substituting nuclear power for coal-fired power. "You have to think about it as, the country has a certain overall need for energy," Dr. Jackson told me,
And depending upon choices in areas like transportation, there could be a need for greater electrical generation, both if we have hybrid vehicles or plug-in hybrids, that kind of thing, where you have batteries that need to be recharged. That could drive an increase...Depending on overall economic growth, a mix of things that drive the economy could drive the need for energy.
And so really it is a function of what the overall energy needs are, and how the mix plays out among the various sectors, from the commercial and industrial, to home heating and cooling, to transportation.
I appreciated Dr. Jackson's subtle answer to a complicated question, even though it didn't make for a convenient sound bite. Too often, the debate about energy in this country gets reduced to the muddled concept of "energy independence." How we use oil versus how we use coal, and the different tactics needed to reduce use of each for the sake of the climate, are seldom made clear; not by most government officials, and not by many activist campaigns that I observe, either.
"Where I come at it is, we need a comprehensive energy security roadmap that has to be a combination of options," Dr. Jackson told me. "Nuclear should be part of that.
But in order for us to get to where we need to be will require a couple of things. One is innovation. Innovation in the energy arena broadly, but innovation as well with respect to new designs for reactors; innovation with respect to fuel cycle management, et cetera. There are ... some things we know how to do today. There are things we know in terms of the science, what to do. But to do these things at scale requires some innovation.
The questions for climate action advocates are tough ones: Is nuclear power the lesser harm to global warming? Would the trade off in expense and radioactive waste be worth it?
And how could we ensure that if we expand nuclear power over the next two decades, we'll really follow through with shutting it off two decades after that?
Obama Promises to Strengthen US-Muslim Sci-Tech Ties
Published June 05, 2009 @ 06:32PM PT
UPDATE, June 6: Over at the Social Entrepreneurship blog, Nathaniel Whittemore delves into another angle on Pres. Obama's speech, "Muslim Social Entrepreneurs and Obama's New Era."
It's understandable that much of the attention on President Obama's speech in Cairo this week -- and it's reception by the Muslim world -- has focused on his comments on peace in the Middle East.
From this blog's good-science-and-global-warming perspective, however, there's news as well, because the president vowed in his remarks to improve scientific and technological cooperation with the Muslim world:
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
There are means to many ends in these initiatives. By creating education and jobs for the "youth bulge" of Muslims in developing nations around the world, this generation gains a stake in the community and the future. [Here's an opposing view on the notion of the "youth bulge" as a global security threat.] Further, women's health is a key component to prosperity and environmental preservation, as well as stabilizing population growth.
These initiatives, if they happen and if they succeed, could become striking examples of the intersections of human rights, social justice, and environmental conservation. Nations freed from massive unemployment, or high mortality among women and children, will have that much more capacity to contribute to solving global warming (by focusing on re-forestation, say, or restoring wetlands, or improving mass transit), and to leapfrog over the West's dirty technologies into clean development.
Prominent Muslim researchers have told SciDev.net that they're encouraged by President Obama's prominent mention of science and technology cooperation:
Hassan Moawad Abdel Al, former president of the Mubarak City for Scientific Research and Technology Applications in Alexandria, Egypt, welcomed the plan as an "important step in the long road to establish a science-based US–Islamic world partnership".
He said he hopes to see an easing of the "unprecedented" scrutiny faced by students from Muslim countries wanting to study in the United States.
He added that since the attacks by al-Qaeda on New York City on September 11, 2001, many potential Muslim students and researchers have not been able to secure visas to study in the United States.
Athar Osama, science innovation specialist and founder of Muslim-Science.Com, said: "This is definitely an important step in the right direction but probably only half a step. Those who know the US political appropriations and policy processes will know that these are only intentions at this point".
"The US government now has the challenge to back this up with sincere will to implement, to do so without attaching it with excessive ideological baggage, and to appropriate the money to make it possible."
"If and when that happens, it would be in the interest of Muslim-majority countries to reciprocate by working with the United States — and with each other — to maximise the impact these initiatives may have on the Muslim world."
In Malaysia, Hassanuddeen Abdul Aziz, of the International Islamic University, said that a study of trends in international mathematics and science, published in December 2008, shows that Islamic states are lagging behind industrialised countries in the teaching of mathematics and science to young students.
"The setting up of an online learning network within the new US-Islamic world educational partnership will have a positive effect on science education," he said. "Especially because the Arabian Gulf education sector appears to be eager to emulate the American model of science and technology higher education in pursuit of the observed success of knowledge economies."
----
Image: "President Barack Obama speaks at Cairo University in Cairo, Thursday, June 4, 2009. In his speech, President Obama called for a 'new beginning between the United States and Muslims', declaring that 'this cycle of suspicion and discord must end'." (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
America's Greenhouse Obligation
Published June 04, 2009 @ 02:37PM PT
Click on this map to view a larger size in PDF format. Source: Purdue University
This December, world leaders will meet in Copenhagen for the next round of climate talks. This is where the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, the carbon-cap-and-reduction agreement that expires in 2012, will be crafted.
The United States has a very special role to play in these negotiations, given that it has produced more greenhouse gas, in total, than any other nation.
Yes, China recently eclipsed America as the number one greenhouse gas polluter in the world. ANd India’s emissions are growing quickly too. Many people argue that we shouldn’t take action here in America unless large developing nations like China and India do so first, because it will be useless.
But this is a false argument.
Over the past 150 years, the US has emitted some 328,264 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MtCO2). This adds up to almost 30 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) caused by human activities, which are estimated to be well over 1,000,000 MtCO2 since 1850.
By comparison, no other nation has produced more than eight percent of historic GHGs. Not even China, which emitted 92,950 MtCO2 over the same time frame.
This places upon the US a moral obligation to lead the world’s response to the climate crisis.
Which brings us to December's meeting in Copenhagen. This is pretty much the last chance we have to get an agreement that will produce coordinated, effective action to prevent catastrophic climate change. Central to the negotiations at the UN climate conference will be national targets, and ultimately a global target, for greenhouse gas pollution reductions.
That means that we need to show up in Copenhagen with the strongest possible commitments to cutting our own GHGs.
The Waxman-Markey climate bill making its way through the House of Representatives simply will not cut it. (This is the position of Greenpeace, where I work, and I agree.)
Scientists tell us that global GHGs must peak by 2015, and then be gradually drawn down to as close to zero as possible by 2050, if we are to avert the worst effects of global warming. More precisely, global emissions must be 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80-95% by 2050.
Waxman-Markey would set domestic targets of only around 14% below 2005 levels by 2020, which works out to be about 4% of 1990 levels.
Cherry-picking vs. the Scientific Method
Published June 02, 2009 @ 11:11AM PT
Good science is about asking questions, and then gathering and analyzing information in order to find the most plausible answers to those questions.
And then doing it all over again in as many different ways as possible.
Here's what's involved in this process, termed the scientific method:
- Ask a question based on observed phenomena.
In climate research, the questions initially were variations on, "Why is the Earth's surface temperature increasing at an unusual rate relative to time? What is causing the accelerated rate of change?" Lately they've included more focused inquiries as well, such as "Why is the pH level of the ocean becoming more acidic? How is this affecting ocean life?" or "What impacts do warmer ocean temperatures have on the severity of hurricanes and typhoons?" - Do background research. This includes knowing how to build on the past work of others, and avoid repeating their mistakes
- Construct a hypothesis, in a way that you can measure the results, and answer your question.
- Test your hypothesis, by doing an experiment to gather data. Do the experiment more than once, and do it fairly (which means, change only one factor at a time and keep the rest constant).
- Analyze the data.
- Draw a conclusion.
You may find that your hypothesis was false. If so, construct a new hypothesis and start to examine it anew using the scientific method.
If you determine that your hypothesis is true, you may well want to test it again in a wholly different way, as well as compare it to the work of other researchers who have used other methods to test the same or similar hypotheses. - Communicate your results to other scientists.
Researchers present their results at professional conferences, and they submit their research to scientific journals to be published, often after a review by their scientific peers.
"Cherry-picking" means picking out the best, juciest, ripest facts to support a predetermined conclusion, from a whole bin of equally sweet, high-quality facts.
There's no test, no trial by peer review, and very seldom any admission that the hypothesis was false.
The cherry-picking phenomenon arises often in the realm of global warming skepticism. By and large -- as evidenced by the converations that take place on this blog -- skepticism involves accepting the data that support a pre-determined belief.
Usually that belief is that the earth's surface temperature is not increasing. A variant thread of belief is that global warming is happening, but isn't caused by human-propelled increases of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
To support the belief, deniers throw out the data that undercut these answers.
Throwing out good data because they contradict something one dearly wants to be true, regardless of whether it is or is not true, is cherry-picking.
Scientific facts are not about belief. They're our best, most informed, most tested explanations of what's actually happening to us, and around us.
-----
Image: Chart of the scientific method, via Science Buddies
Review: The Manga Guide to Electricity
Published June 01, 2009 @ 05:27PM PT
Electopia sounds like the name of a land where elections are always fair, every citizen casts a ballot, and legislators live up to their campaign promises.
But no; it's a world "in which electronic devices are a little more advanced than they are on Earth." When Rereko, an Electopia teen, fails her electricity final, it's off to Earth she goes for the summer (transported to Tokyo on a lightening bolt), to get some remedial instruction on the basics about electricity and electronics.
We less advanced Earthlings get to accompany Rereko on her educational adventure in The Manga Guide to Electricity, a cheerful graphical introduction to the properties and uses of electricity.
Given how relevant energy issues are to both causing and solving global warming, the book is a helpful little primer (or refresher) for understanding electricity supply, energy storage, and power generation.
Engineering grad student and lab rat Hikaru has been selected by Rereko's school principal to be her mentor. Once he gets over his doubts about having an unexpected apprentice for the summer, Hikaru becomes our unpretentious guide and teacher. He begins Rereko's lessons pragmatically, with household appliances and static electricity. But the complexity increases as the lessons progress into Ohm's Law, chemical circuits, how power plants work, and what's involved with semi-conductors, transistors, and sensors.
For readers who want more, the manga chapters are intercut with chapters exploring the properties and physics of electricity, power generation, and basic electronics in a more textbook-like fashion, accessibly written and complete with clearly-drawn diagrams.
This being manga, Rereko has enormous round eyes, like the famous gazes of the creatures in the paintings of Margaret Keane. Early in the story, she provides housekeeper services to slobby Hikaru to convince him to keep her around. Her Electopian school principal appears in a sexy-teacher pinup pose midway through the book (lending some ambiguity of meaning to the title of the chapter, "How Does Electricity Work?"). And there's the obligatory hint of romance between Rereko and her tutor.
Non-aficionados of the form should just overlook these elements as artifacts of the book's origins in another culture.
Electricity is complicated. The Manga Guide to Electricity makes understanding it a little easier, or at least a little easier to swallow.
The Manga Guide to Electricity
By Kazuhiro Fujitaki, Matsuda
No Starch Press
Retail: $19.95
Available at O'Reilly.com, Amazon, B&N, Powell's, and an Independent Bookstore near you.
Fatalistic Friday: Cherries and Canadian science at risk
Published May 22, 2009 @ 03:24PM PT
Make a Bet: The odds of much hotter temperatures by century's end are much better than the odds that we'll take the strong steps needed to stave them off, says peer-reviewed research out of MIT. (Science Centric; I wrote about this study a couple days ago.)
A Waste of Cherry: Northwest Michigan's $44 million cherry crop is in danger from rising temperatures. "...cherry blossoms now appear seven to ten days earlier than they did three decades ago, leaving them susceptible to potentially devastating spring frosts." (The Daily Climate)
Why There's No Sun Up in the Sky: Monsoons will become more difficult to predict as global warming advances, warn Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology researchers in a report published in Geophysical Research Letters last month. "The increased frequency and intensity of rainfall due to global warming will make the tropical atmosphere even more unstable and prediction more difficult in the future, they say," making it harder to give people a crucial 5-to-7-day warning in order to prepare for storms. (SciDev.net)
Let No Good Deed Go Unpunished: The state-run Weatherization Assistance Program for low-income families is at risk of being weakened. States trying to hustle economic stimulus monies into use want to give some of the money to other public agencies and private operators. The Weatherization Assistance Program has operated more or less the same for the past 35 years, and done a good job of it -- which is why it was particularly targeted to receive federal stim funds. (Stateline)
A Fishy Fish: Climate change is one of the top threats to the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of North America. Overly balkanized management of fishing and commercial shipping traffic are equally dire. (Science Daily)
Woe Canada: Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper has appointed two global warming deniers to posts with big impacts on scientific research. Mark Mullins of the right-wing Fraser Institute is now on the board of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. John Weissenberger, a former oil company geologist and Mr. Harper's former campaign manager, has been installed on the board of Canada Foundation for Innovation. University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver described the appointments as "very disturbing...What would the public think if we appointed outspoken proponents of the fallacy 'smoking doesn't cause cancer' as members of the boards funding medical and, in particular, cancer research?" (DeSmogBlog)
