Our Oceans are Under Attack

Calm Down … You Are Much More Likely to Be Killed By Boring, Mundane Things than Terrorism

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818

The CDC notes that 3,177 people died of “nutritional deficiencies” in 2011, which means you are 187 times more likely to starve to death in American than be killed by terrorism.
– You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

– You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

The CDC says that some 80,000 deaths each year are attributable to excessive alcohol use. So you’re 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism.

You are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical error than terrorism.

The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls … most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means that you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack

Wikipedia notes that obesity is a a contributing factor in 100,000–400,000 deaths in the United States per year. That makes obesity 5,882 to times 23,528 more likely to kill you than a terrorist.

Toxoplasmosis is a brain-parasite. The CDC reports that more than 375 Americans die annually due to toxoplasmosis. In addition, 3 Americans died in 2011 after being exposed to a brain-eating amoeba. So you’re about 22 times more likely to die from a brain-eating zombie parasite than a terrorist.



Reason notes:


[The risk of being killed by terrorism] compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist.

 

Obama administration has gone too far in telling people what to eat: Republicans | Nature World Report

What a big disappointment. From the headline I thought Obama was recommending that we eat Republicans!

 

Thousands of people killed by extreme weather so far in 2015 as climate change feared to bring more heatwaves, hurricanes and floods in future

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...hurricanes-and-floods-in-future-10345883.html

Thousands of people have been killed by extreme weather so far this year amid fears that climate change is leading to more deadly heatwaves, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes.

More than 1,000 people have died in Pakistan this week of heatstroke and dehydration as temperatures soared far above 40C and power cuts crippled Karachi.

India is currently recovering from the second deadliest heatwave in the country's history, which had killed 2,500 people by the start of this month.

The Earth Sciences Minister, Harsh Vardhan, blamed the heatwave on climate change.

“Let us not fool ourselves that there is no connection between the unusual number of deaths from the ongoing heat wave and the certainty of another failed monsoon,” he said.

“It's not just an unusually hot summer, it is climate change.”

The phenomenon, which arises from variations in ocean temperatures, is still in its early stages but has the potential to cause extreme weather around the world, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

Karachi, the county’s largest city, has also been hit by huge power cuts leaving more than 20 million people struggling to cool their homes.

Officials said about 40,000 people have suffered heatstroke since Saturday and the number was expected to rise.

 

Coral breeding may help cooler reefs survive warming-study | Reuters

 

World’s Aquifers Losing Replenishment Race, Researchers Say | New York Times

http://www.swmm5.net/2010/12/floridan-aquifer.html

 

‘Climate change? Yeah, nah’..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11472277

New Zealand has one of the highest rates of climate change scepticism in the developed world – a study has revealed. Surprisingly we have more sceptics per capita than in the US – where large numbers of right-wing media and politicians refuse to accept climate change is man-made.

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change was real, scepticism may even be on the rise, the authors of the University of Tasmania study said.

One outspoken Kiwi climate change sceptic, Herald on Sunday columnist and former Act Party leader Rodney Hide "Ex Butcher", said the results showed that New Zealand was "saner than most of the world".

"[The results] suggests to me that New Zealanders are more resistant to propaganda than I would have otherwise believed."

He was concerned about the environment, saying "that's the essence of being a Kiwi, but I'm also concerned about the economy and I've never understood why we should bomb the economy back to cavemen times because of some computer model."

A new paper from the University of Tasmania – called Scepticism in a changing climate: a cross-national study – found 13 per cent of New Zealanders were climate change sceptics.

It was third only to Norway (15 per cent) and Australia (17 per cent). The United States came in at 12 per cent.

 

Pope Francis Gets the Moral Framing Right: Global Warming Is Where the Practical and the Moral Meet

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/pope-francis-gets-the-mor_b_7665694.html

This week, Pope Francis in his Encyclical used all of these and then went much further. First, he got all the science right -- no small task. I have been writing for some time about role of systemic causation in global warming and the environment. The Pope not only got the ecological system effects right, but he went much, much further linking the environmental effects to effects on those most oppressed on earth by poverty, weather disasters, disease, ocean rise, lack of drinking water, the degradation of agriculture, and the of the essential aesthetic and spiritual contact with unspoiled nature. And more, he spoke of our moral responsibility toward animals.

He spoke in metaphors that might sound strange coming in a scientific or political speech, but somehow seem entirely natural for the Pope.

The title of the encyclical is "On Care for our Common Home." This simple phrase establishes the most important frame right from the start. Using the metaphor of the "Earth as Home", he triggers a frame in which all the people of the world are a family, living in a common home.

This frame carries with it many assumptions: As one family, we should care for each other and take responsibility for each other. A home is something we all depend on, physically and emotionally. A home is something inherently worth maintaining and protecting.

164. "...there has been a growing conviction that our planet is a homeland and that humanity is one people living in a common home."

61. "...our common home is falling into seri*ous disrepair."

13. "Humanity still has the ability to work together in building our common home."

Pope Francis explicitly states what most progressives implicitly believe but rarely say out loud: "The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all." The "Common Good" frame is about interdependence, shared responsibility and shared benefit.

I have long argued that global warming is the moral issue of our time. President Obama has said the same. I am now thrilled that Pope Francis, spiritual and moral leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, has not just agreed, but has gone so much further, and that he has framed the issue so powerfully, often in language that flows most easily and readily from a Pope, and yet makes so much moral sense, whether you are Catholic or not, religious or not.

Moral questions are not the same as practical questions. But the fate of the earth in the face of global warming is so practical a question that it becomes a moral one. That is the lens through which to read the Pope's Encyclical.

 

Q&A: Antarctica - our big icy threat

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=11472481

Scientists are watching the dramatic death throes of the huge Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica, which is giving way after 10,000 years. And in only the last six years, glaciers along the Southern Antarctic Peninsula have shed 14 trillion tonnes of water.

Until a few years ago, we saw the Antarctic Peninsula as the canary in the coal mine because it was and is one of the fastest warming regions on Earth.

As direct consequence, we observed ice shelves catastrophically collapse.

Some of these ice shelves have been shown to have existed for more than 10,000 years and that their sudden disappearance was highly unusual.

The process that causes these collapses is that the warming of the air above the ice is sufficient to produce liquid water on the surface of these ice shelves.

This water then refreezes in cracks as it trickles down into the ice below.

When water freezes it expands and so it worked like a wedge, ultimately cracking the ice.

However, now our focus has shifted from the Antarctic Peninsula to the coast of West Antarctica.

The reason for this that an even more powerful mechanism is now causing an ever faster loss of ice and at a place where it hurts.

The easiest way to melt ice is by exposing it to water, especially warm water.
Global change, caused by the ozone hole and greenhouse gas emissions, has led to an intensification of the westerly winds and moved them southwards, closer to Antarctica.

Off the coast of West Antarctica, these powerful and persistent winds have led to the up-welling of deep waters by diverting the surface currents.

Why is this important?

The surface waters around Antarctica are very cold, almost minus 2C.

However, these deep waters are about 1C , thus 3C warmer than the usual surface waters.

This means that the West Antarctic ice sheet has its toes in a warm bath tub with the westerly winds continuing to push warm water to the coast and under the floating ice shelves.

Over the past 10 years, this caused a 70 per cent increase in mass loss of ice and concurrent acceleration in global sea level.

Ultimately, as sea levels continue to rise, we will have to retreat from many low lying regions in New Zealand and around the world.

Another very important area is around the carbon cycle.

The Southern Ocean was until very recently a very important sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide (including uptake of about 50 per cent of global CO2 emissions).

However, due to the warming of the ocean, its decrease in salinity with the additional uptake in CO2, and changes in wind pattern, the Southern Ocean is potentially at the verge of changing from an efficient sink to a potent source.

This is concerning as this will cause more of our CO2 emissions to remain in the atmosphere and in addition oceanic CO2 to be ventilated, further increasing atmospheric CO2.

This will enhance the effects of global warming, including sea level rise.

Another important area is the recovery of the ozone hole.

While it is important for the ozone hole to recover, it currently helps to cool Antarctica and has contributed to the change in surface winds.

There are important and large uncertainties on how these effects will be off-set as the ozone hole recovers and whether this might lead to an acceleration of warming in Antarctica.

Moreover, there are large questions around the terrestrial and in particular the marine ecosystems.

Antarctica is often perceived as this faraway place, inert, unchangeable, and of no consequence to people in New Zealand.

Research over the past decades has shown us that nothing could be further from the truth.
Antarctica is a highly dynamic region, which sensitively responds to and drives global change. It is one of the sensitive dials in the climate system that will shape our future.
In 2013, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time in three million years.

When we look at climate records capturing that time period 3 million years ago, we find that global sea level was 17m higher than today, which tells us that the vulnerable margins of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets had collapsed.

While we know that we have now created the conditions to initiate these collapses again, we are still working to determine how quickly this might happen and here we most concerned regarding West Antarctica.

Professor Bob Bindschandler, an eminent NASA scientist, summarised the problem well: "ice sheets hate water".

The easiest way to melt an ice sheet and thus raise global sea level is by exposing it to water.

Well, most of the Greenland and East Antarctic ice sheets sit on ground that is well above sea level.

This is different for West Antarctica.

Here the continent lies up to 2000m below sea level.

If you had x-ray vision and could look through the ice sheet to the underlying bedrock, West Antarctica would look like a collection of islands separated by deep ocean canyons that are currently filled with ice.

In addition, the weight of the ice sheet pushes the bedrock further down in the centre of West Antarctica where the ice is thicker.

Therefore the ice sheets looks a little bit like a soup bowl.

As the warm, deep waters, pushed by the westerly winds, nibble on the floating ice shelves, the ice retreats towards the interior of Antarctica.

By doing so, it exposes an ever thicker body of ice to the warm waters, which can now even more efficiently eat away on the ice sheet.

The ocean current flowing northward on the eastern side of New Zealand is the second largest current in the world after the circumpolar Antarctic current and is fed directly from Antarctica.

It helps to regulates global temperature and bring nutrients to New Zealand's seas, which are critical for marine ecosystem including fish stocks.

Moreover, about 50 per cent of our carbon dioxide emissions and 93 per cent of the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions is currently absorbed by the oceans and in particular the Southern Ocean.

However, a warmer, more acidic ocean is less capable of absorbing carbon dioxide and thus could accelerate warming in the near future.

It is unclear at present whether the Southern Ocean has already switched from being an important sink for carbon dioxide to being a source.

Antarctica has been part of the New Zealand identify for a long time.

It will also be important to determine our future.

 

Insurance Agents Are Pretty Freaked Out About Climate Change | Popular Science

 

China makes carbon pledge ahead of Paris climate change summit

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ier-li-keqiang-un-paris-climate-change-summit

China will aim to cut its greenhouse gas emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 60-65% from 2005 levels under a plan submitted to the United Nations ahead of crucial climate change talks in Paris later this year.

The pledge has been eagerly awaited as the country is the world’s largest carbon emitter.

China said it would increase the share of non-fossil fuels as part of its primary energy consumption to about 20% by 2030, and peak emissions by around the same point, though it would “work hard” to do so earlier.

The figures are contained in a document submitted to the United Nations ahead of the next round of UN climate talks in Paris. All countries are expected to submit their national pledges to reduce carbon emissions beyond 2020, also known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC).

China plans to increase its installed capacity of wind power to 200GW and solar power to around 100 gigawatts (GW), up from 95.81GW and 28GW today, respectively. It will also increase its use of natural gas which is expected to make up more than 10% of its primary energy consumption by 2020.

 

Algae Fuel

It will be interesting to see if they live up to these promises.

Doesn't China have some vast desert lands that might be utilized for algae fuel production.
I just watched an interesting presentation on these fuels on a PBS NOVA science presentation
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/algae-fuel.html

 

http://inhabitat.com/peru-solar-pow...y-to-the-countrys-2-million-poorest-citizens/

The country of Peru is looking to provide free electricity to over 2 million of its poorest citizens by harvesting energy from the sun. Energy and Mining Minister Jorge Merino said that the National Photovoltaic Household Electrification Program will provide electricity to poor households through the installation of photovoltaic panels.

The first part of the program aims to provide solar systems to 500,000 extremely poor households in areas that lack even basic access to the power grid. Unsurprisingly, it is a massive opportunity for domestic solar installers, and Merino has said that bidding for the contract will open later this year to fix the rest of the panels.

The project was first started in Contumaza, a province in the northeastern region of Cajamarca, where 1,601 solar panels were installed. The energy minister has said that when the project is finished, the scheme will allow 95% of Peru to have access to electricity by the end of 2016.

Speaking to the Latin America Herald Tribune, Merino said: “This program is aimed at the poorest people, those who lack access to electric lighting and still use oil lamps, spending their own resources to pay for fuels that harm their health.”

If Peru can do this for its people, it makes you wonder why more prosperous countries can’t do the same.

 

New study warns of dangerous climate change risks to the Earth’s oceans

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ous-climate-change-risks-to-the-earths-oceans

The oceans have absorbed over 90% of the excess heat and 28% of the carbon pollution generated by human consumption of fossil fuels. As the authors of the paper note, in many regions, the ocean plays an important role in the livelihood and food supply of human populations.

In summary, the carbon that we emit today will change the Earth System irreversibly for many generations to come. The ocean’s content of carbon, acidity, and heat as well as sea level will continue to increase long after atmospheric CO2 is stabilized. These irreversible changes increase with increasing emissions, underscoring the urgency of near-term carbon emission reduction if ocean warming and acidification are to be kept at moderate levels.
The study also makes a critical and often-overlooked point. Some people believe geoengineering is a better or more practical solution than curbing our carbon pollution. Geoengineering proposals often involve slowing global warming by reducing the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, for example by pumping sulfur high into the atmosphere, or putting large mirrors into orbit. However, these proposals wouldn’t curb human carbon emissions, and hence wouldn’t slow the accumulation of carbon in the oceans, or the resulting ocean acidification.

Ultimately, the authors warn that immediate action to cut carbon pollution is critical if we want to curb the rapid and dangerous impacts already being observed in the world’s oceans.

…immediate and substantial reduction of CO2 emissions is required in order to prevent the massive and effectively irreversible impacts on ocean ecosystems and their services that are projected with emissions scenarios more severe than RCP2.6. Limiting emissions to below this level is necessary to meet UNFCCC’s stated objectives. Policy options that overlook CO2, such as solar radiation management and control of methane emission, will only minimize impacts of ocean warming and not those of ocean

 

Strong Westerlies Push El Nino Toward Extreme Event