Why science is so hard to believe - The Washington Post:
hit the nail on the head with this article.
Ever wonder why you can talk with otherwise intelligent people and you suddenly drop into the twilight zone. They suddenly are totally convinced that the earth is flat, and there's no arguing with them.Or they are totally convinced the fluoride in water is a horrible government conspiracy to ...
It is in the water. Or the Kool-Aid. Each group, tribe if you will, is drinking a different flavor. And you drink enough of it, the facts get a little wacky.!!!
This is a wonderful opinion letter.
Here also is a great article as well on the distrust of science by Americans. It includes Pew Research on the topic.
Hmmm....
Achenback argues against the idea of scientist taking a more proactive stance. He argues that when scientist step off of the ivory tower to wrestle in the mud of politics and public policy they get dirty-ugly like the rest of us. (Well, something kind of like that argument anyway.)
So, it appears, that many people only want to hear what they want to hear. If it doesn't match with their world view, then they switch to a channel that matches...
And so we have the world's most information rich environment, with exponentially more information available each decade, yet ignorance runs rampant. It is almost impossible to believe that such is possible. But it is.
For several years now I keep returning to the wise axioms of Rotary International. In the 4-way test, of all we say and do... "First, is it the truth?"
Ignoring the truth (ignoring the facts) has a nasty way of coming back around and biting you in the butt if/when you get it wrong.
We like to focus on sustainability. Things that are sustainable rather easy to view mathematically. Eating 4,000 calories per day, and burn only 2000, you are apt to gain weight. Burn 9m barrels of oil per day (42 gals each) pumping the hydro & carbons into the atmosphere and you are changing all kinds of things in the atmosphere (and environment). [These carbons have been sequestered in the earth for some 5 to 50 million years.] The resulting imbalances will have effects and side-effects. Guaranteed. Predicting them accurately may not be easy. Assuming that doing non-sustainable things won't cause a problem because they never caused a problem before, has some very serious logic flaws.
So, let's all move away from the flavored waters and start seeking out the crystal clear true of the facts and the issues. We'll all have a healthier outlook, and healthier teeth as well.
'via Blog this'
Monday, February 16, 2015
Monday, February 9, 2015
New Look at Oil Reserves, Renewables and Climate Change
New Look at Oil Reserves, Renewables and Climate Change
There is a long term energy competition battle ahead between renewables and fossil fuels. Just as the prices for renewable energy sources, mainly solar and wind, have fallen markedly, our irrepressable technolgy advances have enabled us to find vast new oil reserves under our feet. Check this out to see what we have in billions of barrels: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/04/us-oil-reserves-hit-38-year-high
So, this likely means the prices of gasoline and home heating oil will stay low for some time and it is also likely that Congress will get around to lifting the ban on exporting oil. Good for the consumer? Yes and very much 'no.' From an out-of-pocket perspective, lower costs, more disposable income. From the standpoint of the environment, more oil means more carbon emissions for a longer period of time even considering the ongoing sustainability efforts of large companies and many cities around the world.
It seems we have our feet planted firmly in mid-air on the dilemma of climate change, human activity causation and the profit motive.
There is a long term energy competition battle ahead between renewables and fossil fuels. Just as the prices for renewable energy sources, mainly solar and wind, have fallen markedly, our irrepressable technolgy advances have enabled us to find vast new oil reserves under our feet. Check this out to see what we have in billions of barrels: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/04/us-oil-reserves-hit-38-year-high
So, this likely means the prices of gasoline and home heating oil will stay low for some time and it is also likely that Congress will get around to lifting the ban on exporting oil. Good for the consumer? Yes and very much 'no.' From an out-of-pocket perspective, lower costs, more disposable income. From the standpoint of the environment, more oil means more carbon emissions for a longer period of time even considering the ongoing sustainability efforts of large companies and many cities around the world.
It seems we have our feet planted firmly in mid-air on the dilemma of climate change, human activity causation and the profit motive.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
BBC News - The goats fighting America's plant invasion
BBC News - The goats fighting America's plant invasion:
A different approach to invasives. That would be Kudzu. I wonder how it works with balsam pear in Florida? How about the melaleuca?
Old school, but an effective approach to attach invasive plants is the old goat trick.
What I didn't realize before reading this article, is that the double chew and strong processing of the stomach reduce the changes of seed making the passage through the digestive system (and coming out carefully planted and fully fertilized).
First heard about the herd from NR.
'via Blog this'
A different approach to invasives. That would be Kudzu. I wonder how it works with balsam pear in Florida? How about the melaleuca?
Old school, but an effective approach to attach invasive plants is the old goat trick.
What I didn't realize before reading this article, is that the double chew and strong processing of the stomach reduce the changes of seed making the passage through the digestive system (and coming out carefully planted and fully fertilized).
First heard about the herd from NR.
'via Blog this'
Saturday, January 17, 2015
NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record | NASA
NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record | NASA
This is a good recap of the tie in to record warming with human activity.
It also give links the the raw data and the detailed methodology.
Anybody want to play with the raw, unadulterated data, you will find a LOT of it; and no matter which way you look at it trend line appears. And the trend line is very depressing.
BUT...
This blog is devoted to easy, affordable solutions that can be implemented right now, in a business friendly way. In fact, the first things that can be done, energy efficiency and telecommuting, offer huge savings to everyone concerned (and a nice boost in the direction of sustainability).
Why not start by picking the low-lying fruit now, and then address the heavy lifting as the next step.
Orrrr, we all can wait and wait until governments to get into the mix to help us all with the problems.:-(
We like the business now solution.
This is a good recap of the tie in to record warming with human activity.
It also give links the the raw data and the detailed methodology.
Anybody want to play with the raw, unadulterated data, you will find a LOT of it; and no matter which way you look at it trend line appears. And the trend line is very depressing.
BUT...
This blog is devoted to easy, affordable solutions that can be implemented right now, in a business friendly way. In fact, the first things that can be done, energy efficiency and telecommuting, offer huge savings to everyone concerned (and a nice boost in the direction of sustainability).
Why not start by picking the low-lying fruit now, and then address the heavy lifting as the next step.
Orrrr, we all can wait and wait until governments to get into the mix to help us all with the problems.:-(
We like the business now solution.
Friday, January 16, 2015
It's Official: 2014 Was the Hottest Year on Record (watch the data unfold)
It's Official: 2014 Was the Hottest Year on Record:
This is a very cool -- oops, hot, I mean -- visual of the earth temperatures over recent decades.
As you will see, the monthly averages and the annual averages spike up year after year. Only a few monthly numbers are higher now then in 1995 and almost no monthly numbers are higher than the 20th century average.
2014 was unusual as a hot year because is was not an el nino year. This was a "normal" year in which 5 of the hottest months on record occurred. 2014 outpaced the prior hottest months of 2010 and 2005.
You have to go back a decade to find a coldest record month. That's some ugly statistics, no matter how you look at it.
Here's a different graphic of combined land and surface temperatures in this US Today article. Notice that you could start over with a trend line at about 1995 and produce a new trend line that is simply higher than the historical average of a century.
'via Blog this'
This is a very cool -- oops, hot, I mean -- visual of the earth temperatures over recent decades.
As you will see, the monthly averages and the annual averages spike up year after year. Only a few monthly numbers are higher now then in 1995 and almost no monthly numbers are higher than the 20th century average.
2014 was unusual as a hot year because is was not an el nino year. This was a "normal" year in which 5 of the hottest months on record occurred. 2014 outpaced the prior hottest months of 2010 and 2005.
You have to go back a decade to find a coldest record month. That's some ugly statistics, no matter how you look at it.
Here's a different graphic of combined land and surface temperatures in this US Today article. Notice that you could start over with a trend line at about 1995 and produce a new trend line that is simply higher than the historical average of a century.
'via Blog this'
Study: sea levels rising quicker than previously estimated - Blue and Green Tomorrow
Study: sea levels rising quicker than previously estimated - Blue and Green Tomorrow:
This is a bit of good news which really is really bad news related to sea level rise.
The good news, if you can call it that is sea levels appear to have been rising far slower during the first century of the industrial revolution than previously measured (estimated). Apparently the tidal measures that have been around for centuries didn't represent some areas well, the poles and Florida, for example. A new study publishing in Nature analyzes and adjusts for the big gaps in prior ocean level measures. This is from a study in the journal Nature. Here.
The bad news, is that the last few decades have been more than twice what was measured/estimated.
At the new rate of 3mm per year, sea levels should rise only about one foot over the next 100 years. But this doesn't count thermal expansion of the oceans warming (thermal expansion) over time such that a couple degrees centigrade should produce yards of increased sea levels once the temperature works its way through some 2 miles of ocean (on average).
If this doesn't make you nervous, you have been munching out a little too much on Colorado brownies, and not living very close to the sea shore.
'via Blog this'
This is a bit of good news which really is really bad news related to sea level rise.
The good news, if you can call it that is sea levels appear to have been rising far slower during the first century of the industrial revolution than previously measured (estimated). Apparently the tidal measures that have been around for centuries didn't represent some areas well, the poles and Florida, for example. A new study publishing in Nature analyzes and adjusts for the big gaps in prior ocean level measures. This is from a study in the journal Nature. Here.
At the new rate of 3mm per year, sea levels should rise only about one foot over the next 100 years. But this doesn't count thermal expansion of the oceans warming (thermal expansion) over time such that a couple degrees centigrade should produce yards of increased sea levels once the temperature works its way through some 2 miles of ocean (on average).
If this doesn't make you nervous, you have been munching out a little too much on Colorado brownies, and not living very close to the sea shore.
'via Blog this'
Friday, December 19, 2014
FPL gets approval to charge customers for fracking investment... The Real Story.
FPL gets approval to charge customers for fracking investment | Tampa Bay Times:
I was astounded to here that FPL is getting into the Fracking business. There's this baloney about trying to save some money for their investors. FPL Customers pay, in advance, to drill Nat Gas wells in Alabama, and then reap some of the benefits of the wells, if any, in the form of low NatGas prices in the future.
It sounds too good to be true. And leaves you shaking your head as to why a publicly regulated power utility would wonder off the path into the woods looking for firewood and NatGas.
So the Fla PSC rubber stamped the deal. As they always do. (Although the PSC turned down a petition to pay for Federal Lobbying, an obvious red herring in the mix.)
Comes to find out that NextEra, the parent company of FPL, already has oil drilling interests...
There are many reasons why a power company might want to get into the drilling business, but the one given seems like the very last on the list.
Water, maybe. Fracking takes huge amount of water, as does power generation.
Pipe lines. Power companies already have massive right-of-ways related to power lines. This seems like a perfect fit: run power through the line and gas through the ground.
The one I like best would be to capture the NatGas that is flared in oilfields, produce power and send the power off to the grid through wire. We currently flare half of all NatGas produced in the USA. Nobody really wants to talk about it, but probably more than half. (Better to flare it, then release the methane, but still a very ugly and wasteful business).
Here seems to be the answer: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) through pipelines to markets, domestic and abroad. We in the US pay only bout 1/3 of what the rest of the world pays for NatGas. At about $3.50 per unit for us, and maybe $10-$12 for most other countries. Liquidification and shipping LNG is in the works on many fronts. Cheniere Energy, Inc.
(trading symbol LNG) is coming on board with export terminals with a vengeance.
Imagine what it will look like when our mountains of NatGas start to look like mountains of dollars.
So what does this mean in the next era of power utilities? I don't really know. It should take some time to understand the maze and the interlinking parts.
Here is discussion about Spectra Energy (drilling and such) and FPL and the pipeline in existence and/or planned. LAKE.org article. There's a pipeline through the Gulf...
So very interesting.
And, of course, it has to be mentioned: NatGas is far better than that other major fuel (not mentioning any names, like Coal), but it is still not a renewable resources. Non-sustainable, by any other name, is still a broken business model... It's just a mater of time.
'via Blog this'
I was astounded to here that FPL is getting into the Fracking business. There's this baloney about trying to save some money for their investors. FPL Customers pay, in advance, to drill Nat Gas wells in Alabama, and then reap some of the benefits of the wells, if any, in the form of low NatGas prices in the future.
It sounds too good to be true. And leaves you shaking your head as to why a publicly regulated power utility would wonder off the path into the woods looking for firewood and NatGas.
So the Fla PSC rubber stamped the deal. As they always do. (Although the PSC turned down a petition to pay for Federal Lobbying, an obvious red herring in the mix.)
Comes to find out that NextEra, the parent company of FPL, already has oil drilling interests...
There are many reasons why a power company might want to get into the drilling business, but the one given seems like the very last on the list.
Water, maybe. Fracking takes huge amount of water, as does power generation.
Pipe lines. Power companies already have massive right-of-ways related to power lines. This seems like a perfect fit: run power through the line and gas through the ground.
The one I like best would be to capture the NatGas that is flared in oilfields, produce power and send the power off to the grid through wire. We currently flare half of all NatGas produced in the USA. Nobody really wants to talk about it, but probably more than half. (Better to flare it, then release the methane, but still a very ugly and wasteful business).
Here seems to be the answer: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) through pipelines to markets, domestic and abroad. We in the US pay only bout 1/3 of what the rest of the world pays for NatGas. At about $3.50 per unit for us, and maybe $10-$12 for most other countries. Liquidification and shipping LNG is in the works on many fronts. Cheniere Energy, Inc.
(trading symbol LNG) is coming on board with export terminals with a vengeance.
Imagine what it will look like when our mountains of NatGas start to look like mountains of dollars.
So what does this mean in the next era of power utilities? I don't really know. It should take some time to understand the maze and the interlinking parts.
Here is discussion about Spectra Energy (drilling and such) and FPL and the pipeline in existence and/or planned. LAKE.org article. There's a pipeline through the Gulf...
So very interesting.
And, of course, it has to be mentioned: NatGas is far better than that other major fuel (not mentioning any names, like Coal), but it is still not a renewable resources. Non-sustainable, by any other name, is still a broken business model... It's just a mater of time.
'via Blog this'
Friday, December 12, 2014
Energy Efficiency & Renewables... Good signs for both.
In one recent edition of the New York Times, there were two very positive articles on energy efficiency and improving the cost/kwh of renewables. The Monday, November 24, 2014, issue featured "Good News on Energy," by Ralph Cavanagh of theNatural Resources Defense Fund, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/opinion/good-news-on-energy.html? and "Solar and Wind energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels," by Diane Cardwell, http://nyti.ms/1yJq2r0.
From Cavanagh, peaked energy use occurred in the US in 2007 and has trended downward since with a small increase in 2013. And, economic growth is increasing more rapidly than the growth in energy usage because technology is making energy sources more efficient. The LED light bulb is a good example. Improvements over the last 40 years have done more to meet US energy needs than the combined contributions of oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power.
Electricity consumption has decreased since 2000 despite the introduction of new consumer electronics. Moreover, oil consumption by homes, businesses and vehicles is down 12% since the peak in 2005. June, 2013, began a 12-month period in which the combined usage of renewables exceeded hydroelectric power. More than 12% of our energy supplied comes from renewables and that category is growing faster than the others.
In her article, Cardwell confirms that the cost of providing electricity from wind and solar has dropped significantly in the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas. Several utility companies in the Great Plains and Southwest where wind and sunlight are abundant have signed power purchase contracts, known as "power purchase agreements," for solar and wind at prices below that of natural gas.
According to Lazard, an investment banking firm, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is 5.6 cents/kwh with wind as low as 1.4 cents/kwh. Without federal subsidies that are up for renewal by Congress in 2016, solar costs are about 7.2 cents/kwh and wind would be 3.7 cents/kwh. Natural gas is at 6.1 cents/kwh on the low end and coal is at 6.6 cents.
Both renewables and fossils have limitations. For renewables, the wind has to blow and the sun has to shine as electrical storage technology needs a break through. For the fossils, there are regulations and costs due to carbon emissions pollution. One can expect this hybridization of fossils and renewables to continue for a considerable period of time.
Minor edits: 12/17/2014.
From Cavanagh, peaked energy use occurred in the US in 2007 and has trended downward since with a small increase in 2013. And, economic growth is increasing more rapidly than the growth in energy usage because technology is making energy sources more efficient. The LED light bulb is a good example. Improvements over the last 40 years have done more to meet US energy needs than the combined contributions of oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power.
Electricity consumption has decreased since 2000 despite the introduction of new consumer electronics. Moreover, oil consumption by homes, businesses and vehicles is down 12% since the peak in 2005. June, 2013, began a 12-month period in which the combined usage of renewables exceeded hydroelectric power. More than 12% of our energy supplied comes from renewables and that category is growing faster than the others.
In her article, Cardwell confirms that the cost of providing electricity from wind and solar has dropped significantly in the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas. Several utility companies in the Great Plains and Southwest where wind and sunlight are abundant have signed power purchase contracts, known as "power purchase agreements," for solar and wind at prices below that of natural gas.
According to Lazard, an investment banking firm, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is 5.6 cents/kwh with wind as low as 1.4 cents/kwh. Without federal subsidies that are up for renewal by Congress in 2016, solar costs are about 7.2 cents/kwh and wind would be 3.7 cents/kwh. Natural gas is at 6.1 cents/kwh on the low end and coal is at 6.6 cents.
Both renewables and fossils have limitations. For renewables, the wind has to blow and the sun has to shine as electrical storage technology needs a break through. For the fossils, there are regulations and costs due to carbon emissions pollution. One can expect this hybridization of fossils and renewables to continue for a considerable period of time.
Minor edits: 12/17/2014.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
GreenBiz 2015 | GreenBiz Conferences, Feb 17-19, 2015
GreenBiz 2015 | GreenBiz Conferences, Feb 17-19, 2015:
This is a very cool Sustainability/GreenBiz forum lineup. In Phoenix, in February.
Listen to some of the big companies out there including Unilever, J&J, Target, Levi's, adidas,... I like some of the discussion on metrics and ROI from sustainability... Seems like such a good place to start.
Should be fun. Also, if you are associated with Gov or Edu or ?Org? you might be eligible for a 40% discount.
I might have to try to do it online. I didn't see any details about that. Obviously keynotes are easier to virtualize than breakout/work sessions.
Hope to see you all there.
'via Blog this'
This is a very cool Sustainability/GreenBiz forum lineup. In Phoenix, in February.
Listen to some of the big companies out there including Unilever, J&J, Target, Levi's, adidas,... I like some of the discussion on metrics and ROI from sustainability... Seems like such a good place to start.
Should be fun. Also, if you are associated with Gov or Edu or ?Org? you might be eligible for a 40% discount.
I might have to try to do it online. I didn't see any details about that. Obviously keynotes are easier to virtualize than breakout/work sessions.
Hope to see you all there.
'via Blog this'
Monday, December 8, 2014
WMO Warns Lima Delegates 2014 May Be Hottest Year | Climate Central
WMO Warns Lima Delegates, 2014 ... Hottest Year in History!:-( | Climate Central:
Ouch, this is really really ugly, the data related to 2014 as the hottest year in modern history.
Double to the angst is the melt-off of the Antarctic.
Here's a discussion about both.
The period between April and September, according to NASA GISS was the hottest in 120 years. Most (?all?) of the months since April will set all time heat highs, as well.
Fortunately an El Nino weather pattern did not develop this year or the year-end temperatures would be even higher.
The consistent march of the oceans to higher temperature is doubly scary. It should take years, if not decades for rising temperatures to make a dent in the ocean temperatures. If the oceans are, on average 2 miles deep, it should take a long time for warming at the surface to permeate down to the depths.
Thermal expansion is scary. A 1 degree increase in surface temperatures, on average, should eventually result in about 2 feet of rise at the ocean surface due to thermal expansion as water gets warmer. This may take many years, but the increase is "baked in" if surface temperatures stay the same (or continue rising).
But doubly worrisome are the ice sheets in Antarctica (and Greenland and Iceland) which are ice sheets on top of land. The Arctic in the north is generally ice on top of water, so when the ice melts up there, as it is rapidly doing, it does not affect ocean levels (directly).
A study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters found that the Amundsen Sea Embayment in West Antarctica is melting quickly and at an increasing rate. They found that the ice loss was equivalent to the volume of Mt Everest every 2 years.
The accepted draft of the article is here: paper...
Too bad. After seeing some encouraging studies that suggested that there might be a bit of a hiatus to the march of global warming, some of the more recent measures are not so good.
Ouch!:-(
'via Blog this'
Ouch, this is really really ugly, the data related to 2014 as the hottest year in modern history.
Double to the angst is the melt-off of the Antarctic.
Here's a discussion about both.
The period between April and September, according to NASA GISS was the hottest in 120 years. Most (?all?) of the months since April will set all time heat highs, as well.
Fortunately an El Nino weather pattern did not develop this year or the year-end temperatures would be even higher.
The consistent march of the oceans to higher temperature is doubly scary. It should take years, if not decades for rising temperatures to make a dent in the ocean temperatures. If the oceans are, on average 2 miles deep, it should take a long time for warming at the surface to permeate down to the depths.
Thermal expansion is scary. A 1 degree increase in surface temperatures, on average, should eventually result in about 2 feet of rise at the ocean surface due to thermal expansion as water gets warmer. This may take many years, but the increase is "baked in" if surface temperatures stay the same (or continue rising).
But doubly worrisome are the ice sheets in Antarctica (and Greenland and Iceland) which are ice sheets on top of land. The Arctic in the north is generally ice on top of water, so when the ice melts up there, as it is rapidly doing, it does not affect ocean levels (directly).
A study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters found that the Amundsen Sea Embayment in West Antarctica is melting quickly and at an increasing rate. They found that the ice loss was equivalent to the volume of Mt Everest every 2 years.
The accepted draft of the article is here: paper...
Too bad. After seeing some encouraging studies that suggested that there might be a bit of a hiatus to the march of global warming, some of the more recent measures are not so good.
Ouch!:-(
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)