Comments (6)

By Katie Kish, February 25, 2010 4:28 pm

I meant to write this post a loooong time ago, but I never got around to it. Emily wrote an opinion about global warming that I totally disagree with and is clearly just from lack of research on the topic. Actually, when I first read it …it was like I was reading a slightly edited version of one of the many kinds of creationists arguing against evolution. Luckily, in the mean time Ian Bushfield responded to it for me.

I am by no means a stereotypical environmentalist who knows global warming is a *serious* problem just because I want to get environmentalism into policy… But I’ve read a lot about global warming, listened to debates and done a lot of schooling around the topic … and it happens to be one of the very few areas of stereotypical environmentalism that I agree with. Here is Ian’s reply which was short, sweet and to the point.

Everything you say has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly before.

There IS a consensus among real climate scientists (notice how, like in the evolution/creation debate, engineers are the major opposition “scientists” to the established facts).

The 1970s global cooling myth is a result of a Newsweek article not a scientific journal or consensus among scientists. In fact, articles being published were 44-7 in favour of warming over cooling hypotheses.

Also, if you were concerned about the CRU hacked data, analysis of the emails results in no real “gotcha” moments, and does nothing to discredit the mountains of evidence that exist. At most the emails demonstrate that scientists remain human with all the associated flaws (jealousy, anger, frustration, etc.) that result from continued attack by self-proclaimed sceptics.

Finally, most of the “scepticism” movement is heavily funded by the oil industry similar to how the tobacco industry funded PR against the notion of cigarettes causing cancer or how evangelical religions fund PR against evolution.

2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record and despite what high school chemistry teachers believe (similar to under-trained biology teachers) we are very likely to have caused it. The greenhouse effect is real (or else the planet would be 30 C colder than it is), and putting more carbon into the atmosphere that is normally buried under ground is bound to have an effect.

Scientists do share some of the blame for bad PR and not communicating their findings properly, but nevertheless, the data is in, and it’s time for action. I really did like Jon’s piece at the National Post about why he thinks people are keen to be doubters of the science on this piece, give it a read if you haven’t yet.

There is a lot of really good and easy to understand literature out there about global warming and “Limits to Growth”… It makes economic, mathematical and logical sense that something like global warming is happening and that we need to respond to it so we can be more readily prepared for the future.

Claiming that the science is too hard to understand and therefore it is best to just be agnostic is intellectually lazy. Scientists have devoted their lives to this topic, and have come to the same consensus – global warming is happening. The scientists have done the science for you AND done a good job of framing it for people who aren’t scientists for those willing to put the effort into learning about it.

I understand that some people want to go against the grain and be a skeptic about stuff… but being a skeptic about global warming at this point…is like being a skeptic of evolution. Only skeptics of global warming are VERY dangerous and will result in a lot of possible death and suffering in the potentially near future.

Comments (3)

By Katie Kish, May 27, 2007 11:44 pm

Best. Idea. Ever.

All we need now are for the regulations of the US crash testings to be lowered and we can all run on air powered cars! It also doesn’t run that fast, but honestly – if the amount of people that drove within areas that are about 50 – 60 km/hr had one of these it would make a huge difference in the amount of emissions.

Not to mention there is no problem is traveling slower I know no one wants to do that, but it is an option. So is driving more carfully and putting more restritctions on who drives so that the crash testings don’t have to be so hardcore. Less speed and more mature and carful drivers would decrease the amount of accidents, for sure.

Comments (0)

By Katie Kish, May 24, 2007 12:53 am

The Earth is heating up faster than had previously been predicted due to rapid economic growth. Since 2000 emissions from fossil fuels has increased by nearly 3% a year up from 1% a year in the good ‘ol 90′s.

As people get wealthier – they uh, well, spend more money. That means an increase in consumer goods, creating the goods, garbage and car emissions. Gross. The Australian report found that about 8 billion tons of carbon were emmited into the air in 2005 as C02 compared to the 6 billion in 1995 – that is a huge jump.

Countries will only continue to develope, and any economic growth chart is going to show you that during the stages of industrialization there will be periods of massive and inefficient fossil fuel use. Later it will level off, such has been done in places like the U.S, Canada and Australia… but countries like India and China are pretty much just starting.

The U.S and Europe in the past have accounted for over 50% of the global emissions in the past 200 years, where as China has previously accounted for only about 8%, but now China is “catching up”.

International efforts to fix this problem are pretty much not going to work. You can’t tell China to slow down because the U.S is full of screw ups.  

From the 1970s to the 1990s, the world as a whole was becoming better at producing more energy for the same CO₂ emissions, and more GDP with less energy. But the trend reversed in 2000. “It’s a problem because people are assuming we are heading towards a more energy efficient future and we are not,” says Le Quéré.

The researchers found that no part of the world reduced the amount of carbon used to produce energy between 2000 and 2004, despite widespread publicity in support of greener sources of energy.

The analysis also showed that developing countries accounted for 73% of the growth in CO₂ emissions in 2004, but only 41% of total emissions.

“If you follow anything to do with global policy or global economy these results will not be surprising,” says Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK.

The researchers gathered data from two US government sources, CDIAC and EIA, and compared them to IPCC scenarios (solid coloured lines). The IPPC predicts that the A1F1 scenario will lead to a 4°C rise in temperature by 2100 (Image: PNAS)

Comments (2)

By Katie Kish, May 12, 2007 2:17 am

But for what price?

The Northwest Passage is a route through the Canadian Arctic Arphipelago that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, a route that has virtually been impossible due to the think layers of sea ice coating the passage year round. Satellite images have now confirmed that the passage is most definitely opening up.

This opening creates a 4000 km shorter ship route from China to Europe. Also oil production in Alaska would move much more quickly to the European markets. For a long while the resources in Northern Canada have been extremely hard to get to, and even harder to ship – but this passage will open up the possibility of increased exports. The passage opening up could saved billions of dollars on transport costs and save money like mad crazy.

The map above shows one of the possible routes through the passage. Ships that travel through would enter into Baffin Bay and exit into the Beaufort Sea after going through various Canadian Arctic Archipelago routes. The travel would end with an exit through Chukchi and Bering sea that open into the Pacific Ocean. But who owns the passage? Seeing as it’s in Canada, Canadian’s would like to claim it as their own, but for years the United States has been passing through it claiming that the passage is actually International Waters.

In fact three United States ships were the first to cross the Passage in 1957. The first ship that actually carried significant cargo passed in 1969, the SS Manhattan. The trip was taken, with Sir John A MacDonald (he was my hero in grade 6) on board to see if it was a reliable alternative to the Alaska Pipeline – obviously, it wasn’t seen fit as the pipeline has been long since built.

1979:

2003:

2005:

Year by year the ice in the Arctic has been in a steady decline. The ice concentrations seen in the photos above are obviously different – the top one (the old picture) having significantly more ice than the 2003 and 2005 pictures.

The black lines in the graph above indicate the decline rate of maximum sea ice cover and the red line are the minimum of sea ice covered. The decline rate, based on this graph and produced by studies funded by NASA is an average decrease of 7% per decade.

We need to watch the Arctic Ice carefully, it is the “canary in the coal mine” if you will. The region is sensitive and is showing some of the most drastic changes and events due to global warming. Scientists warn that what is happening to the Arctic now, is just a glimpse of what is to come in the future. The average temperature in the Arctic is rising twice as fast as anywhere else in the world. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, the largest ice block in the Arctic has split.

The melting of ice in this region may seem like its having no effect on how we live and the people of the world, but Native people are being affected greatly. Its disrupting their hunting patterns, their homes and their way of life. Their homes and villages are being flooded and swamped. On top of that it is disrupting the migratory paths of animals such as the Polar Bear, whale and seal – it is also affecting the way these animals hunt. Entire ecosystems are being lost such as the lake enclosed in the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, it drained into the ocean.

If that’s still not enough to convince you that this is your problem as well… it will add to the over all increase in sea levels world wide. Areas that are low lying are in such risk of being flooded and displaced. As much as a 3 foot rise in sea level would happen in the next 80 years thus effecting Louisiana, Texas, Florida, NC, the Maritime provinces and the Western coast of Canada. Also the melting ice of the Arctic is speeding up global warming. Snow and ice, logically, make the world cooler and create a sort of protective layer on the Earth. These rising temperatures are affecting Alaska, most greatly seen in the spruce bark beetles who have had an increase in breeding due to the temperature rise and have eaten up 3.4 million acres of Alaskan Forest.

So sure, maybe we’re getting a nice big trade route opening up up there – but we really need to realize that this passage opening is signifying a lot of really scary events that are taking place right before our eyes. What’s better? A nice open passage for us to ship our crappy consumer goods back and forth? Or a healthy earth that isn’t dying in front of our eyes?

(cross posted at appletree)

Comments (0)

By Katie Kish, May 8, 2007 9:36 pm

We’re often told that little things can make a big difference. Change your light bulbs, recycle, walk, buy local food, unplug things when you’re not using them – etc. But what BIG things are people doing? I’ve picked out five of the coolest “big” projects that I’ve come across in the past year or so:

1. Solar-Powered Paint

Solar-powered paint is a material that is thin enough to fit on any surface, any surface that was being exposed to sunlight would essentially generate energy. These solar “panels” are made out of semiconductors that are one thousandth of a millimeter think, all weather proof, colorable and washable. Your shirt could be powering your cellphone. Your roof could be powering your television and microwave. The downside of it is that solar panels are only 8% efficient, and this spray on paint is only one tenth that efficient.

2. Sewage to Fuel our Cars

Already used in Sweden, Argentina, Pakistan, Brazil and Italy this big idea is going a long way. A form of “gaseous” sewage become fuel for buses all over the cities. The fermentation of the sewage creates methane, known as biogas, and is collected from treatment plants, landfills and abattoirs. In Sweden there is a train connecting Peter Forsberg’s home town to Vastervik, 80 km away from it. Buses, taxis and garbage trucks are all running on this biogas. If the gas is produce locally it costs 1$ per liter. The problem is that since this is such a new technology, it isn’t available everywhere. So cars have to be made with two separate gas tanks, just in case. It has also been found that the cars have a more limited driving range with biogas.

3. Whiting the Clouds

John Latham of the United States government’s National Center for Atmospheric research in Colorado has proposed spraying water into the sky to white the clouds. The sunlight then hits the droplets and refracts its bum back to where it came from. Less light then makes it to the earth surface and ocean, with a low cost of $1 billion in set up costs! Woo! …If you can’t find a problem with this idea, then man… no comment. There are obviously a lot of problems, the biggest one being that water is going to be our next sacred resource, should we really start shooting it into the air instead of taking responsibility for our actions in the first place? Also the clouds could end up reflecting TOO MUCH light, the sunlight being essential in the production of hydroxyl, an important cleaning agent.

4. Hybrid Cars

I guess this one is a pretty huge and obvious topic, but the advances in hybrid technology is astounding. It seems like everyday someone else is releasing a new hybrid car that is sexier and more efficient. The newest and most amazing to me is the zero emission commercial car, Modec. One of the big things that I’ve found people hating is how much pollution goes into shipping food across the country and around the globe – well a vehicle such as the Modec could obviously cut a lot of that problem down. There on one end of the spectrum is super efficient and useful, but we know in this age people aren’t always excited about useful – well the new Velozzi Micro-Turbine Electric Hybrid is completely useless and completely sexy.

5. Artificial Trees

Weird. The earth is going to end up like that one simpson’s episode where it is in the future and the person at Lisa’s college goes and kicks a round circle on the ground where a holographic tree appears accompanied with a sign that says “in memory of a real tree”. These synthetic trees absorb carbon dioxide faster than real trees and their “leaves” are covered in a chemical that reacts with the C02 removing it from the air and turning it into liquid. A 10 x 10 meter tree would cost about $30 000 USD a year to run capturing 1000 tons of C02 which is equal to 204 cars. The trees do need energy to work and there isn’t really a place for all the C02 to be stored… Minor details.

(cross posted at appletree)