Last January, Bryan praised Barack Obama’s inaugural address for promising to make decisions based on observation, data and statistics. Bryan also said,
We will keep a watchful eye over the next four years to make sure that science policy adheres to the agenda and principles that our new president has set out.
So, how are things going so far?
Last week, the White House released a new report on climate change. Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, says the study is seriously flawed. He finds the report relies on data that is old, narrow, non-peer reviewed, second- and third-hand, and contradicted by more recent, peer-reviewed studies. He specifically objects to claims that global warming is leading to more natural disasters. Such disasters are Dr. Pielke’s specialty, and he argues there is no such trend.
Back in February, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said that global warming was going to destroy agriculture in California. Dr. Pielke (who is becoming something of a one-man band in reigning in the more outrageous claims of global warming) picked apart that one as well.
In March, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar removed gray wolves in the northern Rockies from the Endangered Species list. This action was first proposed by President George W. Bush just before he left office, but suspended by the incoming administration. Two months later, they decided that Bush was right to accept the unanimous recommendation of Fish and Wildlife scientists.
Mark hates it when I point out stuff like that…
Courtesy Mark RyanIs the wind being knocked out of the sails of the wind energy industry? A study to be published this summer in Journal of Geophysical Research seems to be pointing that way. Wind measurements in the Midwest and eastern parts of the United States in particular have shown a decline in the energy source.
Two atmospheric researchers, Sara Pryor (no relation to Science Buzz’s own Liza Pryor – or is she?) of Indiana University, and her co-author Eugene Takle, a professor at Iowa State University say their research shows a distinct drop in wind speed in areas east of the Mississippi River, especially around the Great Lakes. Wind speeds there have diminished 10 percent or more in the past decade, and an overall decline in wind has been taking place since 1973.
Global warming may be the cause. Differences in barometric pressure drive wind production. In a global-warming environment, the Earth’s polar regions warm more quickly than the rest of the globe, and narrow the temperature difference between the poles and equatorial regions. That reduced difference in temperature also means a reduced difference in barometric pressure, which results in less air movement (wind).
Peak wind speeds in western regions of the US such as Texas and portions of the Northern Plains haven’t changed nearly as much. Pryor speculates the reason the Great Lakes area shows the greatest decrease may be because wind travels more slowly across water than ice, and in recent years there’s been less ice formation on the Great Lakes. Changes in the landscape such as trees and new construction near instrument stations may have also skewed the research. Still, wind speed studies done in Europe and Australia showed similar declines there, adding credence to the Pryor and Takle findings.
There are detractors to the study. Jeff Freedman, an atmospheric scientist with a renewable energy-consulting firm in Albany, N.Y., says his research has revealed no definite trend of reduced wind speed. And even though research hasn’t been published yet, some climate models studying the effects of global warming seem to agree with Freeman’s findings.
But if Pryor’s and Takle’s study proves to be true, it could mean big losses to the wind energy industry, since a 10 percent drop in peak winds would mean a 30 percent change in how wind energy is gathered.
According to the Global Humanitarian Forum, the number of deaths “that result from the spread of disease, malnutrition and natural disaster caused by climate change” is roughly 300,000 people per year.
Read more about it here.
Courtesy MorBCNIt’s Friday again, Buzzketeers, and you know what that sometimes means.
Yes, it means I may put on drag and take a jog out to the Walgreen’s.
Yes, it means that as soon as the sun sets, I’ll probably go down to the river and scream at the mer-people.
Sure, it means that I might leave work early, so I can go up on my roof and get some extra time in working on my flying eagle costume.
But more than any of that, it sometimes means that it’s time for an Extravaganza!
I know, right? Hoorays all around!
To be more specific, today’s extravaganza is a drugstravaganza. And to be even more specific, it’s a Euro illicit drugstravaganza. Better grab yourself some glowsticks!
Check it out: Spanish scientists have found that the air in Madrid and Barcelona is laced with illegal drugs. In addition to regular old city air-pollutants, the air-quality control stations discovered cocaine, amphetamines, LSD, opiates, and marijuana floating around in the cities’ air. The researchers hasten to point out, however, that these drugs were only found in trace amounts, and that you couldn’t absorb nearly enough to have a noticeable effect even in a lifetime’s worth of breathing. I think, however, that this might just be an attempt to discourage a flood of people who are both drug users and freeloaders from coming into Spain.
The scientists also pointed out that one of the testing stations was located near “a ruined building believed to be frequented by drug dealers” (in English: a “crackhouse”), and that both stations were located near universities, which we all know to be hotbeds of illegal activity. The study was even able to determine that drug levels in the air were higher (ah ha) on weekends, suggesting that local drug use was up on these days. It’s like when your mom smells your jacket for cigarette smoke… only instead it’s your government smelling your neighborhood for coke. (Except I don’t think these scientists were looking to get anyone grounded.)
And then there’s this little item: The Case of the Wandering Trip-fish. Apparently a some British fishermen recently netted a species of bream that causes frightening visual and auditory hallucinations when eaten. (I guess the fishes’ heads, in particular, are pretty hallucination inducing.) The fact that the fish makes people trip isn’t news—in 2006 two men in France were hospitalized after eating the fish, suffering hallucinations for two days, and supposedly this type of bream was consumed as a recreational drug in the Mediterranean region during the Roman Empire. What’s more remarkable is that this is a typically a Mediterranean fish, and it was caught near England. That is to say, it’s a warm water fish, and it was caught in what should be cold water. Its presence near England could be a fluke, but some scientists see it as further evidence of global warming, that colder waters are warming up, and exotic species may be moving it. None of us mind new neighbors, certainly, but we don’t like it when they bring drugs into the neighborhood.
So… I know this isn’t a very extravagant extravaganza, but we’re dealing with sensitive issues here (global warming, duh) so I think I better cut this one short. Plus, I want to get working on my eagle costume.
Courtesy steven.bussHere at Science Buzz, we sometimes have what might seem like a Through the Looking Glass attitude towards Earth Day and environmentalism. I, for one, litter filthy old cans all over my yard, comfortable in the knowledge that these cans will provide wonderful little shelters for the population of rats in my neighborhood. Sort of counter-intuitive, huh? Well check this out: after I get rats living in those cans, I’m going to use highly toxic chemicals to poison the little suckers in their homes. I will then plant sunflower seeds in my dead rat filled cans. So litter + poison + patience = a beautiful garden + delicious sunflower seeds.
Sophisticated environmentalism can be complicated like that.
It feels good though, doesn’t it? A little weird, but good.
Here’s another one (and this one comes from scientists who published in the journal Nature, not just from, you know, me):
Air pollution is fighting global warming!
Say what? We thought global warming was caused by air pollution.
Yes, but… think back to flowers growing from cans of dead rats. It’s like that, kind of.
See, yes, air pollution in the form of carbon dioxide (and other gases, but we’re dealing with CO2 here) is warming the planet. But CO2 isn’t the only junk we’re burping up into the atmosphere. Think about the grey brown haze you see over some big cities. Co2 is invisible, so what’s that stuff? Some of the chemicals we put into the atmosphere have the effect of absorbing sunlight, or reflecting it back into space. Some particles form the nucleus of water droplets in clouds, and cause the same amount of water in a cloud to be spread out among a much larger number of droplets, and more droplets cause light to be reflected and scattered more. It’s all part a phenomenon sometimes referred to as “global dimming”.
Some scientists believe that “global dimming” has had the effect of partially masking global warming; we aren’t as warm as we might otherwise be for the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere because a significant amount of solar energy has been prevented from reaching the Earth by other pollutants. So there’s that.
The Nature article, however, focuses on something else entirely. While many people might assume that plants have a harder time growing in our pollution-dimmed world, it turns out that they actually seem to grow better under a hazy blanket of pollution. The light-scattering effect of many air pollutants actually causes light to reach more plant leaves. So more photosynthesis is taking place under this diffused light than under direct sunlight. That means that plants are growing more, and growing plants suck up more carbon dioxide.
The scientists behind the study estimate that global dimming could be responsible for as much as a one quarter increase in plant productivity from 1960 to 1999, causing a 10% increase in the amount of carbon stored by the land.
This also means that as we have stricter air pollution controls, the rate of global warming probably won’t decrease as much as we’d have thought—there’d be less CO2 in the air, but because other pollutants would be reduced as well plants would be less productive, and suck up less of the CO2 that is released.
If your answer is "Nothing, yet," then you might consider stopping by the museum.
Minnesota's Water Resources: Impacts of Climate Change
Dr. Lucinda Johnson, National Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota-Duluth
Thursday, April 9, 2009
7 - 8:30 pm in the Auditorium
Over the past 150 years, Minnesota's climate has become increasingly warmer, wetter, and variable, resulting in undeniable ecological impacts. For example, more recent changes in precipitation patterns combined with urban expansion and wetland losses have resulted in an increase in the frequency and intensity of flooding in parts of Minnesota. Learn about exciting new research which will develop a prediction model for future climate changes specific to Minnesota, and discover its potential economic and civic impact.
Check it out.
Want to do your little part to raise awareness of Earth's energy crisis? Turn out all your lights Saturday from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. A rolling global blackout will be taking place to mark Earth Hour 2009, the third year such an observance is being made. Among the celebrity endorses of the power-free hour is the band Coldplay, which I assume will be playing an acoustic set if it's on stage during those hours. More than one billion people are expected to cut their lights for an hour around the world Saturday.
Two recent headlines:
Because, y’know, if you can’t win an argument through reason, and you can’t win it through fear, you can always fall back on that old standby, force.
Researchers at Florida State University have found that hurricane activity, both in the North Atlantic and globally, is at a 30-year low, and the trend is expected to continue.
Many people viewed the disastrous 2005 hurricane season as evidence of global warming. Others have pointed to the calmer-than-normal years since then as evidence that global warming is just hype.
Both sides are wrong. Climate is about long-term trends. A single season -- or even a string of seasons -- is not enough to establish a pattern, especially with something as complex as weather. As the Florida report notes, further study is needed before we'll really know what's going on.
Courtesy Wikipedia (Photo by Øystein Paulsen)The above title is a bit clumsy but it conveys what some scientists claim is going on around the south polar region due to climate change and warming temperatures. Changes in wind patterns across Antarctica are not only affecting the composition and levels of phytoplankton in areas there but rising temperatures are also causing sharp changes in the Chinstrap and Adelie penguin populations that feed on the krill that feed on the phytoplankton. The ecosystem appears to be going out of whack. Read more...