Archive for August, 2012
Zingaro Nature Reserve
Aug 27th
One of the most beautiful nature reserves in Europe burned, most likely completely, during the first week of August, 2012. Marian and I hiked in from the south entrance [public outcry stopped a road that was to be bulldosed along the coast into the park] on two wonderful days. We walked along the coast the first day and up over the mountain and down
toward Scopello on the second. We both have treasured memories. The link below takes you to some photos which will just have to suffice until the vegetation regenerates.
Is the situation worse than we think?
Aug 27th
Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
Posted on 26 August 2012 by dana1981
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-irreversibility-and-urgency.html
Comment:
R. Gates at 17:19 PM on 26 August, 2012
“The rapidity of Arctic sea ice loss and the awakening of a the methane “time bomb” across the once frozen regions of the NH is something the 2007 IPCC report didn’t take into account at all. Limiting increase in global temps to 2C is out the window and 3C may be impossible to avoid now as well. Those fools who think that a melting Arctic is a great opportunity to plan for further fossil fuel extrapolation fail to understand the various stresses this will place on a civilization needing to feed 7+ Billion humans.”
Perhaps a reminder is warranted here about methane. Yes, methane is a small percentage of the total greenhouse gas composition. However, it carries a derringer strapped to its left leg in addition to the colt 45 in a shoulder holster. Why?
“There is concern that, if rising global temperatures due to anthropogenic climate change cause the arctic permafrost to melt, massive quantities of methane would be released into the atmosphere, causing a catastrophic run-away greenhouse effect beyond even the upper 5.8ºC estimate postulated by the IPCC. Such a process is believed to have occurred in the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 30
some 55 million years ago, when average global temperatures increased by 5ºC and which lasted for 150,000 years.”
“The atmospheric concentration of methane is thought to have increased by a factor of 2.5 since pre-industrial times, reaching 1745 ppb in 1998. This rate of increase far exceeds that of carbon dioxide, concentrations of which are only 30% higher than in pre-industrial times. In fact, information is sufficient for the IPCC to assert that the current methane concentration has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years.”
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk/chapter02.pdf
“One of the most important ways in which methane differs from carbon dioxide is that it only persists in the atmosphere for roughly 10 years after it is released, whereas carbon dioxide persists in the atmosphere for about 100 years. This means that actions we take today to reduce methane will provide results in just a decade.”
http://oceanlink.island.net/ONews/ONews7/methane.html
It is important to note that although methane doesn’t persist very long in the air, when it does oxidise, it produces 1 Co2 and 2 H20 molecules.
Antarctic warmth not unique
Aug 24th
Antarctica warmth ‘unusual, but not unique’
By Jonathan Ball
BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348427
“In his Nature paper, Dr Mulvaney did not conclude that the recent changes observed in the peninsula were down to human activity.
However, when asked about this, he said: ‘If I am pressed to say whether I think it’s human-induced, then I would say what we are seeing is human-induced.’”
Antarctic warmth not unique
Interesting that Dr Mulvaney did not publish his personal conclusions. Thankfully, Dr. James Hansen does so.
We didn’t really need to be told that Antarctic ice melting is not unprecedented. Most people are aware that we have had glacial and interglacial periods before. Further, it is well accepted that “Changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt produce natural fluctuations in climate.” Unfortunately, the key “natural fluctuations” favour cooling rather than the increasing warming we are recording now.
Few climate scientists, except the handful who are paid as detractors, argue about the causes of global warming. To offer “natural fluctuations” as a significant point in the argument as to the effect of human activity on global warming is spurious at the least and downright misleading. Looking at the last interglacial period, for instance, average temperatures in northern latitudes was higher and sea levels significantly higher – this quite in keeping with the expected effect of the natural fluctuations of the time. The next to the last interglacial period had natural fluctuations much more similar than the last one.
The huge significant fact is that in both of these the level of CO2 was much, much lower.
I have made my case for the evidence of anthropogenic causes of global warming below:
http://www.earthenspirituality.com/glogal-warming/
In summary, the press focuses on controversy. Alarmingly, the global warming detractors are just a handful but are given press coverage as if they were a significant number. Sadly, many, as I mentioned above, are paid to amplify ambiguities. If you think about it, most of the scientific data on the behaviour of living beings is ambiguous. We readily [we don’t have a choice, actually] accept ambiguity and uncertainty, for example, from the establishment medical profession. We are often told to try this drug and come back if it doesn’t work. We pay the bill whether the medicine “works” or not.
Climate change science would be so much easier to understand and appreciate if we examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that earth scientists are studying a living being and not a mechanical object. We should not expect certainty in the same way as we do with a machine. We have a whole set of scientific evidence around Gaia theory.
Sadly, some “theories” are favoured by establishment science over others whilst the public has been conditioned to believe in an unbiased scientific community. Sorry, that is just not true. Some scientific “truths” are more popular than others whilst other “truths,” such as that fact that the earth revolves around the sun and that the world is not flat, took centuries to become “popular.”
Sadly for Earthly living beings, we do not have centuries to avoid the consequences of excessive burning of fossil fuel and the continued chopping of forests to build structures for a human population growth that is completely out of control.
I rest my case in my book “Planet as Self” where I suggest an Earthen Spirituality, a spirituality built around the principle that earthly beings “are” the planet and not just “on” a planet. We will not risk the consequences of the sacrifices needed to turn our situation around unless we come to respect and admire Gaia as our, for want of a more developed vocabulary, higher self.
Incomprehension
Aug 22nd
Incomprehension
Viewpoint by Dan Ariely
Professor of behavioural economics, Duke University, USA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19284017
“So, we took the American society and we asked people to imagine it divided into five buckets, the wealthiest 20%, the next 20%, the next, the next and the poorest 20%.
First of all, we asked people: how much wealth do you think is concentrated in each of those buckets?
It turns out people get it very wrong.
Even Americans understand that inequality is not a good idea and principle”
The reality is that the bottom two buckets together, the bottom 40% of Americans, own 0.3% of the wealth; 0.3%, almost nothing, whereas the top 20% own about 84% of the wealth.
And people don’t understand it. They don’t understand how much wealth the top have and in particular, they don’t understand how little the bottom has.
But then we described to people Rawls’ definition, the veil of ignorance, and the idea they could end up anywhere. And we said: What society would you like to create? How much wealth? How would you like to distribute the wealth?
And it turns out people created a society that is much more equal than any society on Earth. It was much more equal than Sweden.”
Is this a remnant of serfdom?
The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Aug 18th
The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1551
“Taking timely action to avert the worst consequences of climate change requires good public policy. Policy change requires widespread public support. That support will not be sufficient until the broad scientific consensus on climate change is recognized as a fact.”
Posted by Andy S on Thursday, 16 August, 2012
Artic sea ice melting twice as fast as predicted
Aug 16th
See: http://climatesight.org/2012/08/15/a-bad-situation-in-the-arctic/ |
Also see: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/08/13/arctic-ice-melting-faster.html
“Arctic sea ice is in the midst of a record-breaking melt season. This is yet another symptom of human-caused climate change progressing much faster than scientists anticipated.”
“Computer models of the climate system have a difficult time reproducing this sudden melt. As recently as 2007, the absolute worst-case projections showed summer Arctic sea ice disappearing around 2100. Based on observations, scientists are now confident that will happen well before 2050, and possibly within a decade.”
“climate models, which many pundits like to dismiss as “alarmist”, actually underestimated the severity of the problem. Uncertainty cuts both ways.”
How many other significant predictions have they also underestimated?
Climate Dice
Aug 6th
Dr. James Hansen and associates have updated a new paper to be published later this week.
I believe that it is one of his most interesting and revealing. He makes the case for the significance of the weather extremes over the last few years and with actual readings [not models] and reveals how the warming and weather extremes have shifted from 1951 to the present. This is well worth reading.
A Question for You
Aug 5th
Do you think a 1%’er is even remotely interested in the rising cost of a bowl of cereal or any of the higher costs that result from global warming?
Answers from James Hansen
Aug 4th
This is a Q&A from James Hansen well worth reading even for those who will find it a review of what they already know.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120803_DiceQNA.pdf