A cyberbarrel of oil for your thoughts.
And how about crowd-sourcing some real pennies for cartoonist, Stephanie McMillan, who has given me permission to reprint her cartoons. Here’s the link to Paypal where you can donate to her if you like her cartoons. CLICK HERE (then click where it says DONATE).
Related Post:
Edited by Joe Romm, we cover climate science, solutions and politics. Columnist Tom Friedman calls us "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named us one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." Newcomers, start here.
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.
Joe Romm has pulled together the secrets of the greatest communicators in history to show how you can apply these tools to your writing, speaking, blogging — even your Tweeting.
Powered by NewsWhip
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Donate
Previous in TP Climate Progress
I like the CP emphasis of late of getting posts from the “unusual suspects”. That is, republicans, religious groups, and so on speaking out in favor of action. There are plenty more to go for: CEOs, hunters, sports figures, etc.
That’s nice. Another slam on the FDA. The majority of seafood in the gulf region is probably safe. The FDA doesn’t always get everything right, but equating the FDA with BP is just dumb.
The cartoon is not “equating” the FDA with BP; just criticizing it for bending the truth in BP’s favor and being wrong on that count, in this case.
Years ago sitting on the Fla. Beaches talking about the sand is as white as your teeth, the whites of your eyes, course not swimsuit, your apron. Probably isn’t polite conversation anymore.
Our best shrimp?
No, it’s not right to tell him we took these away from the children so he could have more-
The children are still eating?
Oh, those old conversations from years ago have changed.
A good thing to talk about a cultural injury, for as with research on personal injuries denial of the injury allows for situational change that could make the injury worse.
To recognize that an injury occurred in the first step to finding treatment. Even with injuries where there is no cure the normal course of therapy recognizes a persons need to find what the changes are and the need to live with those changes while striving for intervention from the old to improvement of the present.
Many seek that people should not deny reality but strive for a comprehensive view of situational changes.
You should stay for dinner- should be an actable request for guests. That it can’t be taken for granted is notable. In the case of the present injuries to the gulf of pollution such would seem a step in realization of the extent of the injuries.
Yes, we did say that the gulf shrimp was a cultural heritage that could make a man healthy,wealthy and wise. But now I don’t know it, I should say.
That the sand was white may be wrong to talk about as it may bring up those hurt feelings?
Say it so limiting what has become polite to speak of.
Certainly the truth has a place in polite conversations.
Certainly looking to protect life from wasteful destruction has a place in polite conversation.
Certainly seeking for a better way has a place in polite conversation.
Certainly polite conversation requires that parties involved in the conversation look to the facts and truth when conversing about the future. For if not looking to the truth then the conversed insults reality and and belittles the objective of politeness.
Joe – science question for you.
1) We have about another 0.6C warming in the pipeline even if all emissions stopped tomorrow
http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth-10-warming-in-the-pipeline.html
2) McKibben reminds us about the effect on moisture in the atmosphere: 4% more.
Question A-1: how much humidity when we get that 0.6C in the pipeline? (is it roughly linear? (as in “multiply 4% by (0.8+0.6)/(0.8) or non-linear? In either case, what would the new percent-higher-than-it-used-to-be, be? 7%? other?
Question A-2: Same question but now warm the world not by an additional 0.6C (all emissions will NOT end tomorrow morning) but by the minimum we might conceive of, say 2C (or 2.5C) minus today’s 0.8C thus by 1.2 to 1.7 additional degrees of warming. Then what’s the percent?
Question B: have there been studies on what these percent numbers (an atmosphere with N% more humidity than in the recent past, where N% is not today’s 4% but these higher numbers)? What do the studies say? Post summaries on CP..? etc.. Just trying to put 2 and 2 (or 2&2&2) together..thanks.
Question A. Absolute humidty grows approximately as the square of the temperature change. See Chapter 6 in Ray Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate”. This might help answer your Question B.
Interesting study, and if “water cycle” increase N% means the same as moisture content up by N%?
This:
A study published in the journal Science has concluded that climate change is altering oceans and rainfall worldwide.
A team of three researchers looked at ocean data over the period 1950 to 2000.
They found salinity levels have changed in all the world’s oceans, wetter areas are experiencing more rain and drier areas have become drier.
Susan Wijffels from the CSIRO says she expects the trend to continue.
So if we stay on a high emissions pathway we might see warming up around three degrees, which will give us maybe a 24 per cent change in our water cycle.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-27/study-finds-climate-change-altering-oceans-rainfall/3977656
The authors say this could have implications for global food security.
I think its time to start cutting the anti nukes off. Shuttering a few of the oldest plants may need to happen in some circumstances but turning off nuclear in favor of keeping coal and gas it monstrously irresponsible.
Pumping japan full of fear to turn off nuclear power before any renewables are installed is not defend-able. Even after, its the last thing that needs to happen.
Also this weekend its become clear that not only was the “false dichotomy” thing Greenpeace and anti nukes vomited up continuously, untrue, it actually was a hindrance to implementation of clean energy.
Nuclear replaces coal, oil and gas very well. Nuclear and renewals are kinda the “false dichotomy” as they are base-load and intermittent and require different infrastructure, space, and fulfill completely different functions in a large energy grid.
Just looking at renewables as a way to replace nuclear introduces a conceptual error into the mix that will result in bad planing/inefficiency and more carbon.
Its amazing that scientists are afraid to speak out against groups like Greenpeace when they threaten the environment so clearly to the extent they have, and make claims with little or no backing in science.
Yup.
Not before we have a reality based discussion the polluting affect of fossil and nuke costs to humanity. I am not anti nuke, I am anti profit from the pollution of the commons. I often have nuke power within a mile of my home and even tie up in populated areas and no one says boo or bug-sh*t about it. I speak of Nuke powered subs and ships. Level the playing field and then go for it. Let the best power win.
I think probably a mix is going to be the best option. What that best mix is im not sure and the technology in all areas need to be kept moving forward.
Up till now the actual threats form nuclear power have not been based so much on science, historical events, reasonable comparison and risk analysis, but on what people are willing to believe.
Stephen Colbert was honored at the “Times 100″ awards. He gave an address that is as funny as anything you will see in a long time. Guaranteed. Here is a link to highlights and embedded links to more. Enjoy…
http://thepage.time.com/2012/04/25/clinton-and-colbert-at-the-time-100/#ixzz1t6QTiNYT
Correspondents’ Dinner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IoVSbjmTZs&feature=player_embedded#!
Featuring Donald Trump :)
Sustainable CUNY Wins EPA’s Highest Award
http://t.co/Ad1QlMi0
Remember DDT? Acid rain? Fluorocarbons?
Rivers that caught fire? Smog so thick in some cities it made your eyes and lungs burn?
We took care of those things without ever understanding we needed to fundamentally change the way we used this planet. We continued on as we were, as if each of these crises was a one-off. We’re still doing that today.
Won’t work. Need paradigm shift.
While all the ice melts DDT has it’s revival in the food chain…
DDT for the control of fleas, for example, continues to be permitted in many jurisdictions). Populations of eagles, ospreys, and falcons began to rebound. The environment was seemingly on the mend. Or was it?
A recent study by a team of 10 Canadian scientists from Trent University, the University of Ottawa, Queens University, and Thompson River University, spearheaded by Joseph Nocera, casts light on what transpired and its continuing repercussions on the natural world.
Chimney Swifts are delightful birds that superficially resemble swallows. They breed across eastern and central North America, migrating south through central America and the Caribbean to winter in northwestern South America. They are so-called aerial insectivores, meaning they feed by catching flying insects ‘on the wing.’ They are also fast disappearing. Since 1968 when the North American Breeding Bird Surveys began to monitor populations of birds on the continent, chimney swift numbers have decreased by 96 percent.
Scientists discovered something of considerable significance
Nocera and his colleagues are careful to point out that more than just pesticide use and its impact on insect populations has affected chimney swifts; climate change and habitat loss have both been identified as contributing factors to their disappearance. However, this study provides some compelling evidence that pesticide use has affected populations of insect-feeding species such as swifts (and there are many other birds, such as wood warblers, that have shown similar patterns of decline). Such pesticide-induced dietary changes, and their nutritional consequences, may have significant impacts on bird populations, and such impacts can continue long after the chemicals in question have been banned. DDE continues to persist in the food chains and chimney swift populations have not recovered. http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/christophermajka/2012/04/quiet-spring-fifty-years-rachel-carson
And this is just on birds. Fish are much more vulnerable and a major source for human consumption…
And then there’s the disappearing bees.
Local heating effect – wind farms (very small and limited but worth a look)
Wind farms may have warming effect: research
The results, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, showed a warming trend of up to 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade in areas over the farms, compared with nearby regions without the farms. ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-wind-farms-climatebre83s0bg-20120429,0,820956.story )
I wonder if it increases or decreases output.
It certainly has a lot of room for misinterpretation. Especially as people seem to confuse mixing with warming and absorption/emission.
There is a lot of nonsensical opposition to wind – even offshore wind in perfect areas, which is completely ludicrous:
Shell Says No to North Sea Wind Power
Simon Henry, the company’s finance director, said Shell “can’t make the numbers” add up to justify building offshore windfarms. That contrasts with onshore turbines in America where it controls almost 1 gigawatt of wind power. The British government should support an industry that is “already successful” – such as oil and gas – as much as chase a renewable power sector that is still trying to become profitable, Henry added. ( http://earthandindustry.com/2012/04/shell-says-no-to-north-sea-wind-power/ )
Wind distributed across an area large enough to encompass a complete weather system, or in a area of nearly constant wind likely would not even be “intermittent.”
Here is where being rigorous with science in things like nuclear power will pay off elsewhere too. There are plenty of fringe groups, that can utilize social media to obstruct progress in clean energy.
For instance:
Wind farm action groups throw down gauntlet to candidates ( http://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/local-headlines/wind-farm-action-groups-throw-down-gauntlet-to-candidates-1-2255109 )
Canadians protest wind power subsidies over environmental concerns ( http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/03/canadians-protest-wind-power-subsidies-over-environmental-concerns/ )
And my personal favorite:
Stop Smart Meters! ( http://stopsmartmeters.org/ )
Gas string and stick:
Gas drilling job-training programs pop up in NY
Broome is one of five community colleges in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York participating in a coalition called ShaleNET. Funded by a three-year, $4.9 million grant from the U.S. Department of Labor, ShaleNET focuses on recruiting, training and placing people in high-priority, entry-level natural gas jobs. ( http://www.uticaod.com/features/x1942563978/Gas-drilling-job-training-programs-pop-up-in-NY )
North Carolinians: Coastal energy surveys needed
oil and natural gas could mean 35,000 new jobs for the state and $4 billion in new tax revenue through the year 2030 if drilling is allowed. ( http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-04/D9UD9KRG0.htm )
Blackfeet ask for more openness about oil, gas exploration
Unemployment among reservation residents hovers around 70 percent, and the revenue from mineral interests has been used to boost dividend payments to approximately 16,500 enrolled tribal members.
If the oil and gas exploration is successful and wells go into production, royalties are set at 20 percent and the tribe stands to reap substantial benefits.
( http://missoulian.com/news/local/blackfeet-ask-for-more-openness-about-oil-gas-exploration/article_529e15ac-91ba-11e1-b129-0019bb2963f4.html )
The reservation is thought to sit on as much as 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.