Category: Uncategorized

  • Petition to Murdoch AVAAZ

    Alice Jay – Avaaz.org
    9:12 AM (11 minutes ago)

    to me

    Dear friends,

    In 24 hours, the world’s leading climate experts will release the most important report about our planet’s future in decades — but big oil and energy are rallying their worst bully to undermine this global wake up call: Rupert Murdoch and his huge conservative media empire. Let’s beat back his attack by calling him out to tell the climate truth before it’s too late:

    In 24 hours, the world’s top scientists will release the most important report in decades: proving once and for all that climate change is a massive threat, but that government action now can stop catastrophe. It’s a global wake up call to save our planet, but big oil and dirty energy have a powerful bully who’s rallying to stop the truth from coming out.

    Rupert Murdoch owns hundreds of major media outlets including ultra conservative Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, and he’s using his media power to help his oil buddies stop governments acting to curb their profits. In the US alone, a shocking 80% of climate stories from Murdoch’s select papers mislead readers about global warming! Now he’s set his sights on this groundbreaking report, and his media empire will dominate the conversation unless people around the world stand together and drown him out.

    Battles like this are won or lost in the court of public opinion. One giant global petition supporting climate truth plus letters to the editor, tweets, social media messages could be the blows we need to win this fight. Let’s call Murdoch out now and persuade him to back off his attack on science and report the truth. Join now and spread the word — when our call reaches 1 million we’ll send a group of the world’s best scientists to directly give him the facts:

    http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_tell_climate_truth_oz/?bhPqncb&v=29593

    This report written by 2000(!) scientists will be the most comprehensive body of evidence on global warming in years. It states that global warming is “unequivocally” human made, and that urgent action is required by our governments to avert the impact it could have on our earth through droughts, storms, sea level rise, melting glaciers and ice sheets. Climate change will affect all of us, starting with our coral islands, our crops, our seas, and our coastal cities, everywhere!

    But acting to reverse the damage to our planet will take courage and politicians have used the false “climate debate” fueled by right-wing climate deniers as excuses for inaction. That’s why big oil and energy spend so much time funding junk science to question the fact of climate change and the plan needed to reverse its devastation. Murdoch is such a powerful friend because he gives the junk tons of media play around the world. Others join in and they drag more balanced media down as editors feel compelled to mention this phony debate in the name of “objectivity”.

    Government representatives are sitting down with the scientists right now to determine what this report means and what needs to be done. It could be the catalyst for global action that is vital to salvage our earth, but if our media outlets follow Murdoch’s lead, we’ll lose this key moment for visionary policy that is critical to stop the global crisis of our time.

    Let’s get the media to report the truth, end the false climate debate and start the serious battle to end climate change. Sign the petition now to call out Murdoch’s spin:

    http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_tell_climate_truth_oz/?bhPqncb&v=29593

    Scientists say if we don’t act now, it’s over. We will simply tip over the point where we can stop the impact of global warming. Our political leaders are beginning to recognize that they must act. The dirty polluters and media mafia will all do their best to keep their income coming in, but momentum and truth are on our side. If we come together, we know we can stop the wacko noise and save the future for our children and grandchildren, but we must win this battle now.

    With hope,

    Alice, Jamie, Iain, Luis, Emma, Bissan, Laura, Ricken, Jooyea and the rest of the Avaaz team

    MORE INFORMATION:

    What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists (Huffington Post)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130924/us-sci-warming-certainty/

    The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report (The Guardian)
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial?CMP=twt_gu

    Is News Corp. Failing Science? (Union of Concerned Scientists)
    http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Is-News-Corp-Failing-Science.pdf

    Dollars for Deniers: Big Oil Funds Climate Science Denialism (Daily Kos)
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/26/1182365/-Dollars-for-Deniers-Big-Oil-Funds-Climate-Science-Denialism/

    Global Warming Is Very Real (Rolling Stone)
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warming-is-very-real-20130912

    Climate Change Report From UN Introduces Purple Color To Depict Worsening Climate Risks (Associated Press)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/climate-change-report-un_n_3918823.html

    Rupert Murdoch’s Newspapers Mislead Public On Climate Change and Environment (DeSmog Blog)
    http://www.desmogblog.com/rupert-murdoch-s-newspapers-mislead-public-climate-change-and-environment

    Support the Avaaz Community!
    We’re entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way. Donate to Avaaz
  • Indonesia’s foreign minister Marty Natalegawa divulges contents of talks with Julie Bishop

    Indonesia’s foreign minister Marty Natalegawa divulges contents of talks with Julie Bishop

    ABC By Indonesia correspondent George Roberts, staff – September 26, 2013, 8:56 pm

    Marty Natalegawa met Julie Bishop in New York this week
    ABC Marty Natalegawa met Julie Bishop in New York this week

    Indonesia’s foreign minister has divulged the contents of his private discussions with his Australian counterpart Julie Bishop, warning the Government’s asylum seeker policies could damage relations.

    Marty Natalegawa met the new Foreign Affairs Minister in New York this week and the two spoke at length about a range of issues.

    In an unusual step, Dr Natalegawa’s department has issued a press release revealing details of the discussion, which included Australia’s plan to turn boats back to Indonesia.

    Indonesia has repeatedly warned against the policy, which is part of Operation Sovereign Borders, the Coalition’s regional action plan against people smuggling.

    The statement says unilateral measures taken by Australia would potentially risk the close cooperation and trust between the countries.

    It says Dr Natalegawa reminded Ms Bishop that the issue of asylum seekers should be dealt with through existing regional cooperation arrangements.

    It also also says Australia wants to work “behind the scenes” and “quietly” on the issue to prevent too much publicity.

    The ABC’s Indonesia correspondent George Roberts has told PM the statement was “written in Bahasa Indonesia, the language of Indonesia”.

    He says the statement is a rare move from a nation that is usually much more circumspect in diplomacy.

    “Even in recent history, the foreign minister has been very reluctant to speak openly and has been very diplomatic about it,” he said.

    “So this kind of language is quite strong and quite interesting indeed.

    “The foreign minister actually states in this press release that Australia and Indonesia need to take stock in order to identify common interests and that both countries need to basically take a joint approach to this, so it’s almost like going back to square one and starting again.”

    Prime Minister Tony Abbott is due to visit Jakarta next week.

    Indonesia should stop pious rhetoric: Downer

    Former foreign minister Alexander Downer says Dr Natalegawa should not be “taking shots” at Australia as soon as a new government is elected.

    “Let me make this point for Mr Natalegawa’s benefit: Indonesian-flagged boats with Indonesian crews are breaking our laws bringing people into our our territorial waters,” he told ABC’s The Drum.

    “This is a breach of our sovereignty and the Indonesians need to understand that instead of a lot of pious rhetoric about the Australian Government breaching their sovereignty.

    “Their people, their boats, their crews are breaching our sovereignty and this is something that needs to be worked out in a mature and constructive way as it was during the Howard years.

    “Indonesia has a heavy responsibility to bear in helping Australia solve this problem, not take the view that they can liberally attack the Australian Government and continue to allow their boats with their crews bringing people to our country … breaking our laws in doing so.”

    Effective border policy needs Indonesian cooperation: UN

    Ms Bishop has previously said regardless of how Indonesia viewed them.

    However, the United Nations’ refugee agency says the Government will struggle to turn back boats without Indonesian cooperation.

    “We don’t think you can resolve the issues by unilaterally turning back boats,” the UNHCR’s regional representative Richard Towle told PM.

    “Those sorts of things raise enormously challenging problems for people involved in rescue at sea and interceptions … and without the strong agreement of a receiving country it’s very difficult for those things to be done effectively.

    “And what worries us in this situation is that it doesn’t address the acute protection needs of people who are taking these difficult and dangerous journeys.

    “It’s very important to address both the legitimate border and security concerns of states but also make sure that people are fairly and humanely treated. And that’s the kind of balance we think can be best achieved through genuine long-term strategic engagement with countries in the region.”

    Morrison to inspect Manus Island centre

    Meanwhile, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison has arrived in Papua New Guinea’s capital Port Moresby ahead of a visit to the processing centre for asylum seekers on Manus Island.

    Mr Morrison has visited Papua New Guinea several times, but this is his first trip as Immigration Minister.

    His first meeting was with attorney-general Kerenga Kua.

    Mr Morrison told Mr Kua that Mr Abbott is grateful for PNG’s help in tackling people smuggling.

    But Mr Morrison said the agreement with the Rudd government to send asylum seekers to Manus Island needed to be developed further.

    “The previous government had put some measures in place. I think we have many challenges ahead to ensure we can get those arrangements on a stable footing,” he said.

    Mr Morrison will head to Manus Island tomorrow to inspect the processing centre and efforts to increase its capacity.

    Doctor: 5 Warning Signs You’re About to Get Alzheimer’s Disease

  • The Future Is Not What it Used to Be: Climate Change and Energy Scarcity, by Jörg Friedrichs

    The Future Is Not What it Used to Be: Climate Change and Energy Scarcity, by Jörg Friedrichs

    26 September 2013

    Jon Turney is dispirited by the rhetoric of collapse in a sober analysis of two global crises

    You pretty much know what this book is going to say before you begin reading. While Jörg Friedrichs doesn’t say so, that is part of the evidence for his conclusion. Two worldwide crises loom, he reminds us. Peak oil – the point at which we arrive at the maximum rate of petroleum extraction and decline follows – threatens the energy supply on which we have built everything else. Yet while oil and other fossil fuels last, there will be enough of them to shift climate into a regime that poses new dangers to billions of people. In short, “industrial society as such is the least sustainable form of civilization in history”. And we are not going to do anything about it.

    His starting point is that industrial society is transient because it relies on the impossibility of endless growth: Malthus was always right, in principle, and the neo-Malthusians are right now. We face an imminent decline in a currently irreplaceable resource, oil, and a breaching of planetary limits, by releasing greenhouse gases. The likely result is societal collapse some time around the middle of this century.

    As he concedes, this is more or less what was projected in the Club of Rome’s 1972 report The Limits to Growth, so his book’s title is a little misleading. For some, this is pretty much the future as it has looked for the past 40 years.

    Friedrichs goes on to consider how we might respond to energy scarcity. Using an approach that is new, to me at any rate, he analyses what happened when there were disruptive shortages of energy in modern societies. In a sober, and sobering, chapter, he relates what ensued: “predatory militarism” in Japan in the 1920s and 1930s, and totalitarian lockdown to preserve elite privileges while millions starved in North Korea in the 1990s. The only hopeful case is Cuba in the 1990s, when an unusually cohesive society managed to reconfigure production to feed everyone. None of these is a particularly good model for a global system facing declining oil production, however. It would most likely lead, Friedrichs suggests, not to immediate collapse or any smooth transition, but to painful adaptation that could last a century or more.

    There follows a chapter discussing the state of knowledge and argument about our two crises. This, to my mind, is less convincing. Friedrichs sees both climate science and predictions of future oil production as examples of “post-normal science”, in the sense defined by Jerry Ravetz and Silvio Funtowicz. This appears to fit, in that both involve “high stakes” issues, but I believe it is a mistake to conflate the two in terms of the kinds of uncertainty they raise. Predictions of future climate change owing to greenhouse gas effects – on the largest scales at least – seem to me much more solidly grounded than those regarding future oil production.

    While peak oil will certainly happen at some point, we don’t know when. That is not good news, of course, because the more oil, shale gas and – worst of all – coal we burn, the graver the climate problem will become.

    That being so, Friedrichs moves on to why our response has been so ineffective. The reasons include various kinds of inappropriate discounting and a good deal of denial – in the psychological sense, which is more salient than calling those who contest the facts of climate change “denialists”.

    The pessimistic conclusion follows. We know our society and economy must soon change. We will not do anything seriously to prepare for that change. So it will be even more damaging when it comes. A brief concluding chapter does sketch a few more positive possibilities, but Friedrichs says flatly that it is unrealistic to believe they will happen.

    And the point of writing a book to tell us this? Well, says Friedrichs dispiritedly, and dispiritingly, intellectual honesty is all he has: “The best thing a moral individual can do is to try to live ‘in the truth’. Life is tragic and sometimes there are no solutions.”

    Not good enough, I say. The rhetoric of collapse, which recurs throughout this otherwise serious appraisal of a poor situation, is too all-or-nothing. There is still enough uncertainty to keep proposing solutions. Is there enough time to decarbonise the economy and build a new energy system before climate change has seriously bad consequences? Probably not. Is it still worth trying in hope of averting the worst? In my version of the “truth”, yes. I’ll live in that one, thanks. But I’ll keep thinking about Friedrichs’ version while I do.

    Source:

    The Future is Not What it Used to Be: Climate Change and Energy Scarcity
    By Jörg Friedrichs
    MIT Press, 224pp, £18.95
    ISBN 9780262019248

  • Marine science: Oceanography’s billion-dollar baby

    International weekly journal of science

    Nature | News Feature

    Sharing

    Marine science: Oceanography’s billion-dollar baby

    A mammoth undersea US project will soon start streaming data to researchers. But some wonder whether the system is worth its high price.

    25 September 2013

    Article tools

    The remotely operated vehicle ROPOS is lowered into the sea by the crane aboard the R/V Thomas G. Thompson.

    Alexandra Witze

    On a sunny day in July, it takes 90 minutes for the R/V Thomas G. Thompson to traverse the locks connecting Seattle’s inland waters to Puget Sound. On deck, John Delaney looks impatiently out to sea. As an oceanographer at the University of Washington in Seattle, he has made this trip many times to explore beneath the Pacific’s waves. But Delaney hopes that this seven-week expedition will be the beginning of the end for these time-consuming journeys. “We don’t want to be ship-bound,” he sighs. Instead, he is spending money — a lot of money — to open a permanent window onto the sea floor.

    Delaney is the architect behind a 925-kilometre network of fibre-optic cable and instruments being installed on the seabed off the coast of Washington and Oregon. If all goes according to plan, these will stream real-time data back to shore by 2015, delivering some of the first live video footage of an underwater volcano erupting, hydrothermal vents growing and clouds of microbes billowing from the sea floor. The cabled network is a key part of the massive US Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), which aims to create a flood of continuous information from select sites.

    Oceanographers have long relied on brief glimpses of data from single research cruises or isolated buoys or moorings. The OOI, and Delaney, aim to exchange those flashes of insight for a constant spotlight. “The goal is to launch an era of scientific discovery,” Delaney says, thumping his fist on the ship’s deck rail. “This is a game-changer.”

    ALLISON FUNDIS; UNIV. WASHINGTON

    Many US oceanographers have not yet considered just how the OOI’s broad scope and potential might affect their research. But some who have been watching its development closely warn that the project is an expensive gamble. Construction costs will run to US$386 million, and the programme will then consume about $55 million per year for operations and maintenance. By the end of its planned 25-year lifetime, the OOI will have cost nearly $1.8 billion — an unprecedented price tag in oceanography.

    The running costs will eat up about one-sixth of the annual budget for ocean sciences at the US National Science Foundation (NSF), and that proportion could increase. “That money is being pulled right out of what could otherwise be allocated for peer-reviewed science,” says Charles Eriksen, an oceanographer at the University of Washington who is not involved with the project. Critics also complain that the OOI sites cover only a fraction of a per cent of the world’s oceans.

    Such objections hold little water with Delaney. “People say cables are expensive,” he says. “Well, ships are expensive too.” The hour and a half it takes to traverse Seattle’s locks costs the University of Washington roughly $4,000.

    Telecom spin-off

    The OOI sprouted from a germ of an idea planted by Delaney and Alan Chave, an ocean scientist now at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts. It was the early 1990s, and Delaney was frustrated with getting only enough ship time to visit the sea floor for a day or two every couple of years. Chave had been working for the US telecommunications giant AT&T, and he suggested hooking a piece of old telephone cable up to instruments on the seabed. The fibre-optic cable would provide electricity and stream data back to shore. “This is transformational,” Delaney thought.

    The idea of a permanent oceanographic observatory slowly gathered steam at the NSF, and by 2007 the agency had decided to invest some $330 million in the concept. The problem was working out exactly what to build. To qualify as a national facility and justify the cost, the observatory needed to expand beyond sea-floor cables to include instruments that could plumb the full depth of the water column. OOI proponents initially dreamed up an observatory on steroids: multiple cabled arrays along with more than a dozen coastal and deep-water sites. Not surprisingly, the final project design cut back on most areas. “You have to build what you can afford,” says Deborah Kelley, a marine geologist at the University of Washington and an OOI project scientist.

    After input from hundreds of researchers, the project team settled on three main components (see ‘A mega-ocean observatory’). The first, and most ambitious, is the fibre-optic network southwest of Seattle, most of which has now been laid. This will connect dozens of sea-floor instruments across the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate, which slides under North America and drives seismic activity along the west coast from northern California to Vancouver Island in Canada. The instruments will focus on an active underwater volcano called Axial Seamount, and a formation called Hydrate Ridge, where methane vented from the sea floor feeds a unique ecosystem.

    “The goal is to launch an era of scientific discovery. This is a game-changer.”

    The second component involves laying an array of moorings to support instrumentation off the east and west coasts of the United States. In each array, automated profilers will shuttle up and down cables measuring chlorophyll, oxygen and other factors from the sea floor to the surface. Six gliders will rove between moorings to make similar measurements. The third part of the project will use moorings and gliders to monitor four deep-water sites in the far north and south. These six sites will be run by WHOI, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, and Oregon State University in Corvallis.

    Together, these stations will marshal the forces of about 760 sensors, of 47 different designs, to collect data on variables ranging from water temperature, salinity and density to acidity, carbon dioxide and oxygen levels. “One of the most transformational things is how interdisciplinary it will be,” says Kelley.

    Elsewhere, similarly ambitious oceanographic observatories are already in use. Japan has two dense sea-floor observatories — DONET and DONET2 — with a focus on earthquake and tsunami studies. And many nations operate networks of buoys: the international Argo project has an array of more than 3,000 floats. The OOI will collect a broader selection of data than those efforts. In Canada, a cousin to the OOI has been up and running since late 2009. That project, called NEPTUNE Canada, involves 800 kilometres of fibre-optic cable laid on the northern part of the Juan de Fuca plate. The Canadian government has spent Can$200 million (US$194 million) on sea-floor observatories. The OOI’s cabled observatory will be very similar, but because it is getting a later start, it will have newer designs of sensors and moorings, says Kate Moran, president of Ocean Networks Canada, which oversees NEPTUNE Canada.

    It is these sensors that Delaney is dreaming of as the R/V Thompson reaches the Axial volcano in July. When the captain pulls the ship to a halt above the underwater mountain, engineers manoeuvre a boxy yellow submersible called ROPOS down into the water. From 1,500 metres below the ocean surface, it sends back a murky video feed of an eight-metre-high mineral chimney, its sides festooned with microbial growth, its top spouting shimmering hot water.

    Snapshot science

    Visiting Axial like this costs almost $70,000 a day and provides only a snapshot of the volcano’s behaviour. Oceanographers have, in the past, dropped off seismometers and hydrophones at Axial and retrieved them later, allowing them to study an eruption after the fact. And, in 2011, an expedition led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration happened to arrive just months after the volcano erupted, providing scientists with a fortuitous opportunity to study fresh lava flows. But sightings of underwater eruptions are rare, even though this is the most common type of volcanism on Earth.

    Axial is expected to erupt again within a decade and OOI researchers plan to catch it in the act. A bottom-pressure tiltmeter will measure gradual changes that could indicate that the volcano is inflating, and a cutting-edge mass spectrometer will sniff the water for hints of magma rising from below. When an eruption seems imminent, a fleet of gliders could be deployed to study chemicals in the water column. A high-definition video camera, installed this summer, will watch a hydrothermal vent on Axial’s flanks. All this should yield details about how magma reaches the volcano’s summit, how that relates to seismic activity, and how organisms living in this extreme environment deal with an eruption. “There are so many questions we don’t have answers to,” says Kelley.

    Delaney says that the $126-million cabled observatory is the only way to spy on Axial properly. The OOI’s investment in other parts of the ocean will also gather data that cannot be obtained using existing equipment, says Tim Cowles, programme director at the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, the organization in Washington DC that is overseeing the OOI.

    The four high-latitude deep-sea moorings, for example, will help to study the exchange between air and water where powerful winds whip the sea surface into a froth. Weather forecasters and climate modellers need better information on how energy and gas move between the deep ocean, the sea surface and the atmosphere. But because oceanographic equipment tends to take a beating in fierce weather, measurements are few and far between at high latitudes. A team led by Uwe Send at Scripps deployed 57 instruments at a site in the Gulf of Alaska in July, making it the first deep-sea OOI site to be completed.

    “By the end of its 25-year lifetime, this observatory will have cost nearly $1.8 Billion.”

    The coastal arrays, meanwhile, should be useful for studies of algal blooms. Gradual changes in near-surface temperatures can drastically affect how phytoplankton blooms form in the spring, but catching such changes in the act is tricky, says Kendra Daly, a biological oceanographer and OOI project scientist at the University of South Florida in St Petersburg. “We have no ability to predict exactly when that will happen, so it’s hard to get ship time to be out there right when the bloom starts and ends,” she says. Measuring nutrient concentrations and primary productivity on the spot will allow researchers to better quantify how much carbon dioxide is absorbed by blooms, which has implications for understanding how biological systems interact with climate, Daly says.

    To even start to tackle these science questions, the OOI team will need to get its instruments into the water before a tight deadline of February 2015. After that, the money available to complete the job will dry up. “All those things that have to happen in the last six months of the project do make all of us nervous,” says Cowles. The project’s schedule has been frantic since 2009, when the OOI received an initial input of almost $106 million from the government stimulus bill enacted in the wake of the economic recession. That infusion of funds was welcome, but it left the team scrambling to get everything in place. “It kicked us out of the gate ahead of schedule, and we’ve been trying to catch up ever since,” says Cowles.

    At least one hurdle stands in the way of a timely completion. For now, the team led by the University of Washington can’t connect the instruments it has deployed to the backbone power-and-data cables leading to the shore. The NSF requires that the company that made the cables, L-3 MariPro of Goleta, California, ensure that they are in proper working order before handing them over, and L-3 MariPro is running behind. Delaney’s team had to shorten this summer’s field season and bank some of its ship days for 2014, intending to connect the instruments then.

    And there are other, bigger worries. One is the daunting cost of maintenance. OOI sites are slated to be serviced every one, three or five years — depending on the equipment — which will run up a hefty ship-time bill. And unforeseen glitches are bound to strike. NEPTUNE Canada has run into major technical issues, including the failure of kilometres-long segments of cable and instruments that stopped working after just a year on the sea floor.

    Ensuring data quality is also a concern. “That’s the big worry in my mind,” says Douglas Luther, an oceanographer at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and an OOI project scientist. The OOI’s cyberinfrastructure team is developing automated algorithms to flag up any obvious problems — such as sensors that record temperatures hundreds of degrees above those of neighbouring devices — but there is currently no money to fund a big quality-control team.

    Another question is how much demand there will be for the data. Not everyone will be able to abandon field trips in favour of using the OOI’s instruments. Microbial oceanographer Julie Huber of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole studies microbes living on and in Axial volcano. The OOI’s cabled network isn’t much use to her — so far there is no instrument she could plug in for her microbial monitoring. “It doesn’t replace me having to go out there,” she says.

    Ocean outreach

    The OOI’s leaders could follow the example of their northern colleagues. Canada’s undersea cabled networks, which cost Can$16 million annually to run, have nearly 8,000 active data users per year, which is right around the level their funders wanted to see. In large part, that is because Ocean Networks Canada employs six staff scientists to reach out to researchers and educators with suggested ways to use the data. “Users just don’t come — you have to work at it,” says Moran. So far, the OOI has no formal outreach plan.

    There are also fears that NSF programme managers will feel under pressure to fund projects that use OOI data, in order to validate its cost. “Mostly, we’ll be paying a lot of money trying to make this hardware a success,” says Russ Davis, an oceanographer retired from Scripps who helped to develop key floats for the Argo array. “If it isn’t awfully wonderful, it’s going to look bad for the NSF and be bad for science.”

    For Delaney, the OOI’s potential outweighs such concerns. As the Thompson makes its way across the Pacific, leaving the underwater volcano behind, he muses about the interconnectedness of the oceans. “A single ship can only be in one place at one time,” he says. “We need to be present in multiple places in multiple times.”

    That omnipresent capability is what the OOI is all about. And if it costs a lot of money, Delaney wants the research community to keep the sums involved in perspective: NASA, for comparison, spends billions each year. “Our investment in the ocean is way below our investment in outer space,” he says. “But the return is

  • Global warming pause ‘central’ to IPCC climate report

    Global warming pause ‘central’ to IPCC climate report

    Matt McGrath By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News

    The BBC’s Victoria Gill explains why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report really matters, in just 90 seconds

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is meeting in Sweden to thresh out a critical report on global warming.

    Scientists will underline, with greater certainty than ever, the role of human activities in rising temperatures.

    But many governments are demanding a clearer explanation of the slowdown in temperature increases since 1998.

    One participant told BBC News that this pause will be a “central piece” of the summary.

    Researchers from all over the world work with the IPCC to pore over thousands of peer-reviewed studies and produce a summary representing the current state of climate science.

    Continue reading the main story

    “Start Quote

    Governments are demanding a clear explanation of what are the possible causes of this factor”

    Prof Arthur Petersen Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

    Its previous report in 2007 was instrumental in helping the panel share the Nobel Peace Prize that year.

    A new Summary for Policymakers on the physical sciences, the first of three parts that make up a report to be released over the next 12 months, will be published in Stockholm on Friday.

    It will focus on the science underlying changes in temperature in the atmosphere, the oceans and at the poles.

    New estimates will be given for the scale of global warming and its impact on sea levels, glaciers and ice sheets.

    Levels of certainty

    In its last report in 2007, the IPCC stated that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” – in other words, humans burning fossil fuels.

    pause
    Continue reading the main story

    • The onset of the current pause coincides with a spike in upper ocean heat uptake around 2002 (lower graph)
    • It may have begun when energy trapped by greenhouse gases was buried below the surface of the ocean
    • However, the continuation of the pause in global surface warming beyond 2004 coincides with a decline in upper ocean heat uptake
    • Understanding the cause of this decline in upper ocean heat content is crucial for explaining the continuation of the pause in surface warming

    In the latest draft summary, seen by the BBC, the level of scientific certainty has increased.

    The panel states that it is 95% certain that the “human influence on climate caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperatures from 1951-2010.”

    But since 2007, there has been a growing focus on the fact that global average temperatures haven’t gone above the level recorded in 1998.

    This slowdown, or hiatus as the IPCC refers to it, has been leapt upon by climate sceptics to argue that the scientific belief that emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet, is wrong.

    Scientists have attempted to explain the pause in a number of ways, with many arguing that the Earth has continued to warm but that the heat has gone into oceans.

    The most recent report suggested that a periodic cooling of the Pacific ocean was counteracting the impact of the extra carbon in the atmosphere.

    But there is no certainty and little agreement among scientists on the mechanisms involved.

    And this week, when the scientists will go through their summary line by line with officials from 195 governments, the pause is likely to be the focus of heated debate.

    IPCC Chairman of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri celebrates the panel’s share of the Nobel peace prize in 2007

    Prof Arthur Petersen is the chief scientist at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and part of the Dutch delegation that will review the IPCC report.

    “Governments are demanding a clear explanation of what are the possible causes of this factor,” he told BBC News.

    “I expect that this will be a central piece of the summary.”

    There are likely to be tough negotiations between the parties throughout the week, with governments having already submitted around 1,800 comments on the draft.

    Any changes to the text will need to be approved by the scientists, who will want to make sure that they are consistent with the underlying reports. This could lead to some tense moments.

    “I wouldn’t say there is a reluctance of the authors to take up such an issue as the pause, but they want to do it in a proper way,” said Prof Petersen.

    “There will remain a tension between how much you can deliver based on the peer-reviewed science and what the governments would like to have.”

    Too sensitive

    In the draft report, the panel agrees that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012) is smaller than the trend since 1951”.

    The effect of this slowdown means that the future temperature range predicted by the IPCC will be wider than in 2007, and with a lower starting point.

    Many sceptical voices believe this is a recognition that the IPCC modelling process has been too sensitive to carbon dioxide, a claim given some credence by the text of the draft which states that some models have “too strong a response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing”.

    But Prof Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who is a vice-chair of the IPCC, rejects this idea.

    Continue reading the main story

    Climate change glossary
    Select a term to learn more:
    Adaptation
    Action that helps cope with the effects of climate change – for example construction of barriers to protect against rising sea levels, or conversion to crops capable of surviving high temperatures and drought.

    “To take that out of context, if that change is confirmed this week, and to present it as a big change in the opinion the IPCC has on climate sensitivity, is ridiculous,” he said.

    “Most climate scientists wouldn’t say that the 15-year period is a good reason to question the overall quality of models.”

    There is a feeling among many scientists involved with the process that this report will be more complicated and cautious than in 2007.

    In the wake of that year’s report, a small number of embarrassing errors were detected in the underlying material. The organisation’s reputation was also questioned in the Climategate rumpus.

    “Overall, the message is, in that sense more conservative I expect, for this IPCC report compared to previous ones,” said Prof Petersen.

    “The language has become more complicated to understand, but it is more precise.

    “It is a major feat that we have been able to produce such a document which is such an adequate assessment of the science. That being said, it is virtually unreadable!”

    Follow Matt on Twitter.

    More on This Story

    Related Stories

    The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

    More Science & Environment stories

    RSS


  • Ocean eddies, cosmic black holes may have much in common

    Ocean eddies, cosmic black holes may have much in common

    Astronomers learn more about the physics of black holes.

    Ocean eddies, cosmic black holes may have much in common
    Science Recorder | Rick Docksai | Wednesday, September 25, 2013

    What do black holes and ocean currents have in common? More than meets the eye—according to a new study published by scientists from the University of Miami and the Swiss institution Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, the movements of a large ocean eddy can fairly closely mimic that of a black hole.

    An eddy is a swirling of fluid that occurs when the fluid flows past an obstacle and runs against the greater body of fluid’s reverse current. The larger eddies can extend as much as 90 or more miles in diameter and influence global climate by conveying warm and salty water to cooler locales. The southern hemisphere’s eddies have, incidentally, been increasing in number in recent years, a possible byproduct of global climate change.

    Like black holes, ocean eddies may pose a danger to anything in their path. They obviously don’t suck objects into event horizons so dense that time stops and even light cannot escape, like black holes. But they do stimulate extreme weather events. And the force of their currents does cause the drowning deaths of unsuspecting swimmers who get caught in them.

    Ocean eddies have been very hard to identify, as their boundaries don’t present clearly visible start and end points. The Miami and Swizerland-based science team devised a solution, however. In their study, which was published in the Journal of Fluid Mechanics, they presented a mathematical technique for pinpointing the coherent water islands within oceanic turbulence. It enabled them to isolate water eddies within surfaces of water presented to them via satellite images. And it is based on comparing the motion of ocean eddies to that of black holes.

    They determined that eddies possess surrounding barriers similar to those of black holes. Light approaching a black hole is gone if it reaches the edge of it, but if it hits the edge at a certain angle, it may instead bend dramatically and form a circular orbit, eventually returning to its original position. A barrier surface of light photons, called a photon sphere, then emerges.

    Certain large eddies have similar barriers, the team wrote. They consist of fluid particles that move around in loops with so much force that nothing can escape from them. If we look for these barriers, we will more easily spot the ocean eddies that created them.

    The team’s results may be a boon to many future ocean studies. Longstanding questions regarding climate, the spread of environmental pollutants, and other matters may be more solvable based on this study’s findings.

     

    Did we miss something? Send us tips, press releases, or ideas for stories: tips@sciencerecorder.com

    Read more: http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/ocean-eddies-cosmic-black-holes-may-have-much-in-common/#ixzz2fyLu6KKF