Tag Archives: Scientists

The pope’s call for climate action backfired in conservative America.

Miami Beach gets all the attention for its increased chronic flooding due to rising sea levels. But Miami’s poorer, inland neighborhoods on the other side of Biscayne Bay are also experiencing flooding from high tides.

CityLab reports on Shorecrest, an economically diverse neighborhood in northeast Miami that flooded during last week’s King Tide.

That’s just a sign of more frequent things to come. The Union of Concerned Scientists projects that by 2045, these sunny-day flooding events will increase from six to 380 times per year.

Miami has many neighborhoods across the bay from Miami Beach that are just as flood-prone but, being less wealthy, have fewer resources to deal with the impacts. Since all of Miami-Dade County lies barely above sea level, and sits atop porous limestone, even poorer neighborhoods farther inland are vulnerable.

Shorecrest residents complained to CityLab that they get less adaptation help from local government than richer neighborhoods. (Miami Beach is a separate, richer city from the city of Miami.) On Miami’s west side, predominantly low-income, Latino neighborhoods face flooding that could pollute their freshwater supply.

Florida and Miami need to get serious not just about climate adaptation, but climate justice.

Link:  

The pope’s call for climate action backfired in conservative America.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ringer, Springer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The pope’s call for climate action backfired in conservative America.

Sorry, California, it’s looking like another droughty winter.

Miami Beach gets all the attention for its increased chronic flooding due to rising sea levels. But Miami’s poorer, inland neighborhoods on the other side of Biscayne Bay are also experiencing flooding from high tides.

CityLab reports on Shorecrest, an economically diverse neighborhood in northeast Miami that flooded during last week’s King Tide.

That’s just a sign of more frequent things to come. The Union of Concerned Scientists projects that by 2045, these sunny-day flooding events will increase from six to 380 times per year.

Miami has many neighborhoods across the bay from Miami Beach that are just as flood-prone but, being less wealthy, have fewer resources to deal with the impacts. Since all of Miami-Dade County lies barely above sea level, and sits atop porous limestone, even poorer neighborhoods farther inland are vulnerable.

Shorecrest residents complained to CityLab that they get less adaptation help from local government than richer neighborhoods. (Miami Beach is a separate, richer city from the city of Miami.) On Miami’s west side, predominantly low-income, Latino neighborhoods face flooding that could pollute their freshwater supply.

Florida and Miami need to get serious not just about climate adaptation, but climate justice.

See more here: 

Sorry, California, it’s looking like another droughty winter.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ringer, Springer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sorry, California, it’s looking like another droughty winter.

The Clinton campaign considered proposing a carbon tax.

Miami Beach gets all the attention for its increased chronic flooding due to rising sea levels. But Miami’s poorer, inland neighborhoods on the other side of Biscayne Bay are also experiencing flooding from high tides.

CityLab reports on Shorecrest, an economically diverse neighborhood in northeast Miami that flooded during last week’s King Tide.

That’s just a sign of more frequent things to come. The Union of Concerned Scientists projects that by 2045, these sunny-day flooding events will increase from six to 380 times per year.

Miami has many neighborhoods across the bay from Miami Beach that are just as flood-prone but, being less wealthy, have fewer resources to deal with the impacts. Since all of Miami-Dade County lies barely above sea level, and sits atop porous limestone, even poorer neighborhoods farther inland are vulnerable.

Shorecrest residents complained to CityLab that they get less adaptation help from local government than richer neighborhoods. (Miami Beach is a separate, richer city from the city of Miami.) On Miami’s west side, predominantly low-income, Latino neighborhoods face flooding that could pollute their freshwater supply.

Florida and Miami need to get serious not just about climate adaptation, but climate justice.

Link to original: 

The Clinton campaign considered proposing a carbon tax.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ringer, Springer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Clinton campaign considered proposing a carbon tax.

20,000 leagues under the sea, we’ve made a mess

Deep sea dumpster diver

20,000 leagues under the sea, we’ve made a mess

By on Jun 22, 2016Share

Congratulations, us! We’re officially everywhere.

Not content with corralling our influence to the land-based parts of the globe, we’ve managed to weasel our way into the very depths of the ocean, according to scientists from the University of Aberdeen who found pollutants in the bodies of amphipods more than six miles under the sea.

Among the chemicals detected were polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a class of chemicals used to make plastics. PCBs are known to act as carcinogens, neurotoxins, and hormone disrupters, so they were banned in the United States and many other countries in the 1970s. But PCBs are hard to break down, and — clearly — haven’t been banned everywhere. Scientists suspect the high concentrations in the Mariana Trench are due to its proximity to plastic manufacturers in Asia.

Researchers also found polybrominated diphenyl ethers, which are found in flame retardants and are currently being phased out in parts of the world.

Scientists are concerned that these toxins could impact the trench’s ability to act as a carbon sink. Deep trenches are full of microbes that help convert carbon and regulate climate, but pollution could disrupt that ecological service.

“We often think deep-sea trenches are remote and pristine, untouched by humans,” said Alan Jamieson.

Looks like nothing on this planet is.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

More: 

20,000 leagues under the sea, we’ve made a mess

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 20,000 leagues under the sea, we’ve made a mess

For the 97 billionth time: Yes, there is a 97 percent consensus on climate change

For the 97 billionth time: Yes, there is a 97 percent consensus on climate change

By on 13 Apr 2016commentsShare

You know how some parents have to check their kids’ bedrooms for monsters every night, even though they know there aren’t any monsters, and deep down, the kids probably know that too? Well, a bunch of researchers effectively just checked the bedroom of every climate denier for lack of consensus on anthropogenic global warming, and just like the mom peering into her kid’s closet for the 100th time, they came up empty.

There IS a scientific consensus on climate change, and it DOES hover around 97 percent, according to a study published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters. The unsurprising results come not from another superfluous survey of scientists and scientific papers, but rather, a survey of those surveys. Meaning the study’s authors, Merchants of Doubt co-author Naomi Oreskes among them, basically just double-, triple-, and quadruple-checked under the bed, beat a dead horse, banged their heads against a wall, wrote up their findings, and managed to do it all while not screaming, “WE JUST DID THIS YESTERDAY. NOW SHUT UP AND GO TO SLEEP!”

That’s because little Suzy is irrational, and so is a lot of America. Despite what people like Ted Cruz want you to believe, we are warming up the planet, and unless we do something about it, Suzy and her little friends are in for a rough future.

Surveys of scientists or studies reporting this not to be the case either conflate experts with non-experts or falsely equate a “no position” stance with denial or uncertainty, the new meta-survey shows. One survey of economic geologists, for example, found only a 47 percent consensus. But that’s a pretty meaningless result, because if Ben Carson taught us anything, it’s that someone can be a smart, well-respected expert in one field and a complete idiot in another.

Now, it’s tempting to just ignore people who deny this clear consensus. Many of them aren’t interested in facts and never will be, so why waste our energy? Because these people aren’t operating in a bubble. They’re using this false narrative to keep the public in a state of confusion and thus hinder any serious effort to address this problem.

John Cook, the lead author on the new study and a fellow at the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland, wrote about this danger today in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. He said that years of misinformation and doubt from conservatives have seriously skewed the public’s understanding of where scientists stand on climate change. Just last year, he noted, a survey revealed that a mere 12 percent of Americans knew that the consensus was above 90 percent.

For those of us who think about climate change all day every day, this is pretty hard to believe. But it’s the sad truth, and it’s why we have to continue looking for monsters and beating dead horses. Fortunately, the more the world starts to change, the harder it’s going to be for people to hide behind false or misleading studies. And if that doesn’t give you hope, then maybe this clip of Bill Nye making infamous merchant of doubt Marc Morano squirm will:

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Source: 

For the 97 billionth time: Yes, there is a 97 percent consensus on climate change

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on For the 97 billionth time: Yes, there is a 97 percent consensus on climate change

Here’s the Secret Data Climate Scientists Are Hiding From Us

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For years, the more dimwitted of the climate denialists have been yammering on about a pause in global warming. This is not based on the measurements and models that even some climate scientists are puzzled about. It’s based on using a chart that begins in 1998, which was an unusually warm El Niño year. By using a very warm starting point and a more ordinary ending point, they make it look like nothing much has been going on for over a decade.

It’s all nonsense. But two can play at that game. Last year was quite warm, and this year is warmer still. From the New York Times: “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the American agency that tracks worldwide temperatures, announced Wednesday that last month had been the hottest September on record, and that the January-to-September period had also been the hottest since 1880. Scientists say it is now all but certain that the full year will be the hottest on record, too.”

Hmmm. 2008 was a bit of an outlier on the cool side. So I think I’ll start there and end in 2015. Handily for me, NOAA now has a nice interactive tool that allows me to chart any period I want and even calculates the trend line for me. This generated the chart on the right. Naturally, I changed the y-axis to Fahrenheit in order to produce bigger, more dramatic numbers. Oh, and I started the y-axis at 0.8 °F instead of zero, because that produces a steeper, more apocalyptic trend line.

So there you have it. Proof positive that global temperatures are skyrocketing at a pace of 0.58 degrees per decade. This is the news that climate “scientists” in the pay of Big Fossil have been hiding from us. If you can’t trust a chart based directly on NOAA data, what can you trust?

Source: 

Here’s the Secret Data Climate Scientists Are Hiding From Us

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s the Secret Data Climate Scientists Are Hiding From Us

Even scientists who don’t study the climate think climate change is a big deal

Even scientists who don’t study the climate think climate change is a big deal

By on 25 Sep 2015commentsShare

Only in a country where people treat science like it’s fashion advice from the Olsen twins — that is, subjective and not for everyone — do we have to read headline after headline about broken heat records. I mean, we all know what global warming means, right? Reporting on every uptick in average temperatures like it’s breaking news is arguably insane — delusional at best!

But sadly, we do live in such a country, and therefore have to keep reminding people that yes — climate change is a thing and we humans are largely responsible for it. In that spirit, a group of researchers at Purdue University surveyed nearly 700 non-climate-science scientists at Big Ten universities about their opinions on the matter, because the 97 percent consensus among scientists who actually do study the climate is still not doing the trick. Here’s what they found:

Of 698 respondents, about 94 percent said they believe average global temperatures have “generally risen” compared with pre-1800 levels, and 92 percent said they believe “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”

Nearly 79 percent said they “strongly agree” and about 15 percent “moderately agree” that climate science is credible. About 64 percent said climate science is a mature science compared with their own field, and about 63 percent rated climate science as “about equally trustworthy” compared to their discipline.

Scientists’ beliefs by discipline. The vertical line is the average response. 

Environmental Research Letters image/J. Stuart Carlton

So basically: Scientists who don’t study the climate are also overwhelmingly on board with anthropogenic climate change. The researchers found no significant differences among disciplines on that point, but they did find that physicists and chemists were more likely to think of climate science as a less mature field than their own, which is understandable, since physics and chemistry are old as hell.

On an individual level, the researchers found that cultural and political values did play a role in scientists’ beliefs, proving once and for all that scientists are, in fact, human beings.

Linda Prokopy, one of the authors of the study and a professor of natural resources at Purdue, said in a press release that she and her colleagues also found a significant difference between scientists who relied on published scientific papers for information and those who relied on the media:

Respondents’ certainty in their beliefs on climate change appeared to be linked to the source of their climate information. Certainty was correlated to how much of respondents’ climate information came from scientific literature or mainstream media, Prokopy said. The more respondents relied on scientific studies for information on climate change, the greater their certainty that human activity is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise.

“Climate literature is very compelling and convincing,” she said. “Scientists are not fabricating their data.”

There. We’ve heard what these non-experts have to say about climate change. Is everyone happy, now? Can we all agree that the experts aren’t lying and that science is more than just hear-say and witchcraft? No? Fine — next up we’ll poll 17-year-old basketball players and people who are into normcore.

Source:

Purdue study: Climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

, Purdue University.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

See the original article here – 

Even scientists who don’t study the climate think climate change is a big deal

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Smart Solar, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Even scientists who don’t study the climate think climate change is a big deal

Forget insecticides. Scientists are making pests that destroy themselves

Forget insecticides. Scientists are making pests that destroy themselves

By on 31 Aug 2015commentsShare

Let’s get this right out in the open: Scientists are genetically engineering moths to self destruct. I know, I know — sounds pretty mad scientist-y. But consider this: Those moths are wreaking havoc on sauerkraut-destined cabbage, kale, and other super-hip cruciferous super foods. So either the moths go, or you have to start microwaving leftover rice and hot sauce for lunch like everyone else.

Now that I’ve got your attention, pop open a jar of that artisanal sauerkraut and let’s begin. Diamondback moths are kind of the Incredible Hulks of the pest world. Try to kill them with a single pesticide, and they’ll just develop resistance and grow stronger. Farmers try to work around this by deploying multiple pesticides in rotation, but even then, the moths remain a stubborn foe. Here’s more from the New York Times:

An invasive species, the diamondback moth was once a minor nuisance. It became an agricultural headache in the late 1940s as chemical pesticide use exploded. The moth, the first crop pest to evolve resistance to DDT, multiplied as feebler competitors died off.

Today, the pest is found where kale, broccoli, Chinese cabbage and other cabbage cousins grow. Hungry caterpillars that hatch from eggs laid on the plants cost farmers an estimated $5 billion a year worldwide. And the diamondback moth continues to adapt to new generations of pesticides. In Malaysia, it is immune to all synthetic sprays.

OK — so chemicals don’t work. And the moths’ natural foe, wasps, are even less effective than chemicals, the Times reports. Desperate, scientists even tried sterilizing the suckers back in the ’90s using gamma radiation — something that totally screwed the unfortunately named screwworm — but that didn’t work either, according to the Times.

Fresh out of ideas, scientists at Cornell and the British biotech company Oxitec pieced together a gene that makes female moths dependent on an antibiotic for survival. That way, when they’re out in the wild, the females die before reaching reproductive age, the Times reports. (If the feminist in you is angry that the self-destruction works only on females, take comfort in knowing that the gene leaves a bunch of adult males without anyone to bang.)

Not surprisingly, these mutant moths have sparked some controversy. Here’s more from the Times:

Groups opposed to the use of genetically modified organisms worry that the protein made by the synthetic gene could harm wildlife that eat the moths.

“We would argue that more information should be collected,” said Helen Wallace, the director of GeneWatch U.K.

Haydn Parry, the chief executive of Oxitec, says the company addressed this concern and others in data submitted to the Department of Agriculture.

“We fed the protein to mosquitoes, fish, beetles, spiders and parasitoids,” he said. “It’s nontoxic.”

Scientists at Cornell are currently testing the effectiveness of the gene by putting modified moths and wild moths together in outdoor cages. Anyone concerned about mutant moths wandering around organic fields where they don’t belong needn’t worry, the Times says:

Studies suggest the likelihood of diamondback moths straying is low. Wild moths released into the open tend to stay put as long as they have food and company. Any that do venture farther afield are likely to be wiped out by New York’s cold winter.

Even if strays are found, legal experts say that national organic standards penalize only the deliberate use of a genetically modified organism.

And fortunately, the researchers at Oxitec equipped the moths with a gene from coral that makes them glow red under ultraviolet light, so if they do get out, they’ll be easy to spot (assuming most farmers are also aspiring crime scene investigators).

Just like those mosquitos modified for self destruction down South, these moths will face a lot of scientific and societal barriers before gaining acceptance in the agriculture world. Still, they’re slated for a test run in a small cabbage patch next summer, so it’s worth considering how you feel about them now. Personally, I’m not too torn up about scientists tinkering with disease-carrying mosquitos, and if it means less insecticide use, mutant moths don’t sound so bad either, especially considering they’re kind of wired for self destruction already.

Source:

Replacing Pesticides With Genetics

, The New York Times.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

More here:  

Forget insecticides. Scientists are making pests that destroy themselves

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Forget insecticides. Scientists are making pests that destroy themselves

Humans really are unprecedented in Earth’s geological history — and that’s a bad thing

Humans really are unprecedented in Earth’s geological history — and that’s a bad thing

By on 29 Jun 2015commentsShare

There’s no doubt that a) humans have messed up the planet big time and b) our ability to maintain our sanity while barreling toward an uncertain and potentially catastrophic future is perhaps our greatest achievement of all time. But in a new study from the latest issue of The Anthropocene Review, researchers explain just how much we’ve f-ed up this beautiful world.

“We think of major changes to the biosphere as the big extinction events, like that which finished off the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous Period. But the changes happening to the biosphere today may be much more significant,” Mark Williams, a geologist from the University of Leicester and leader of the study, said in a press release.

Indeed, Williams and his colleagues claim that not since the evolution of photosynthetic microbes or multicellular animals has the course of Earth’s ecosystem changed so much. Scientists already acknowledge that we’ve entered a new human-induced geological epoch called the Anthropocene (although they disagree on when it began).

“But what is really new about this chapter in Earth history, the one we’re living through?” Williams says in the press release. “Episodes of global warming, ocean acidification and mass extinction have all happened before, well before humans arrived on the planet. We wanted to see if there was something different about what is happening now.”

Here are the four key changes from the press release, that they say define this unprecedented time in Earth’s history:

The homogenisation of species around the world through mass, human-instigated species invasions — nothing on this global scale has happened before

One species, Homo sapiens, is now in effect the top predator on land and in the sea, and has commandeered for its use over a quarter of global biological productivity.  There has never been a single species of such reach and power previously

There is growing direction of evolution of other species by Homo sapiens

There is growing interaction of the biosphere with the ‘technosphere’ — a concept pioneered by one of the team members, Professor Peter Haff of Duke University — the sum total of all human-made manufactured machines and objects, and the systems that control them

On the plus side, if humanity is headed for demise, at least we’re going out with a bang — like that drunk guy who gets tossed out of the bar and triumphantly knocks down every chair on his way to the door.

Source:
Extreme makeover: mankind’s unprecedented transformation of Earth

, University of Leicester.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

View post:

Humans really are unprecedented in Earth’s geological history — and that’s a bad thing

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Humans really are unprecedented in Earth’s geological history — and that’s a bad thing

Is spider silk the fabric of the future?

Is spider silk the fabric of the future?

By on 4 Jun 2015 4:38 pmcommentsShare

What would you rather wear: water guzzling cotton, petroleum-based polyester, or a crazy strong wonder material that comes from spider butts?

The correct answer is spider butts — I mean, spider silk. (Before you jump to the comments, I should say that I know that spider silk doesn’t actually come from spiders’ butts; it comes from their “spinning ducts.” But, come on, spider butts is way more fun to say.)

San Francisco-based company Bolt Threads is planning to have spider-silk clothing available as early as next year, according to Bloomberg Business. The company, founded five years ago by a group of graduate students at UC San Francisco, is pitching the nature-made textile as an eco-friendly alternative to some of the gross fabrics that we wear now.

But here’s the catch: Bolt’s spider silk doesn’t actually come from spiders. It turns out those little eight-legged monsters are terrible at textile mass production. Here’s more from Bloomberg:

Scientists, at least those who aren’t arachnophobes, have tried to mass-produce spider silk for decades with little success. Spiders are territorial and cannibalistic—try to farm them, and they end up eating each other. But scientists have long believed that if spiders would only cooperate, fabric made from their silk would be well-suited for use in military and medical equipment, like wound sutures or artificial tendons, as well as in high-performance athletic clothing and other garments.

When the Bolt crew first started out, they actually bought a bunch of spiders from an insect dealer in Florida and let them spin their silk all over the office. (Not surprisingly, that method of production proved untenable.)

Instead, the researchers genetically engineered yeast to produce the same material through fermentation. They can even specify the softness, stretch, and strength of the material, Bloomberg reports. Oh, and they also have a sweet office:

Bolt Threads occupies offices across the San Francisco Bay, in Emeryville. A copy of Charlotte’s Web is in the lobby, and a chandelier made of silkworm cocoons hangs in the conference room. The real action is in a series of interlinked labs, where billions of bioengineered yeast cells ferment, excreting their protein fibers into slurries of water, salt, and sugar. In another room, centrifuges filter out the silk from the liquid. A larger room will hold 200-liter fermentation units for producing silk in greater quantities. Bolt is working with manufacturing partners such as the Michigan Biotechnology Institute in Lansing, which will do larger-scale fermentation in 4,000-liter tanks using Bolt’s process, and Unifi, a yarn manufacturer based in Greensboro, N.C., which will spin Bolt’s fibers into apparel-ready yarn and textiles.

Of course, any plan to mass produce anything raises a lot of questions: How much water and energy will it take to put us all in spider silk tees? Could spider silk have any negative health impacts? Will spiders confuse us all for giant prey caught in giant webs? And most importantly — is there any chance (any chance AT ALL) that a shy, 25-year-old reporter who’s kind of a nerd could get superpowers from wearing spider silk clothing?

Source:
A Bay Area Startup Spins Lab-Grown Silk

, Bloomberg Business.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading:  

Is spider silk the fabric of the future?

Posted in Anchor, eco-friendly, FF, GE, ONA, organic, OXO, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is spider silk the fabric of the future?