Climate Change Continued
| December 29, 2009 Are condoms and birth control pills more cost effective than windmills and solar panels as tools to curb global warming? Population Growth and Global Warming By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF Yes, and by a wide margin, contends Thomas Wire, a postgraduate researcher at the London School of Economics and author of a recent study asserting that family planning is nearly five times more cost effective in mitigating global warming emissions than green energy technologies like wind and solar power. Its always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions - the carbon tonnage cant shoot down, as we want, while the population keeps shooting up, Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, the British environmental group that sponsored the study, said in a Statement http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/population-growth-and-global-warming/ November 20, 2009 New Scientist: Mini ice age took grip in Europe in months: HERE March 22, 2009 Important to look at both sides of Climate Change - getting it wrong could cost us all dearly: Denial Crock of the Week. HERE March 19, 2009 Timing of Seasons Is Changing. HERE March 15, 2009 Northeast of the United States to suffer most with sea rise from Global Warming - new report. March 1, 2009 MIT Group Increases Global Warming Projections Report: High odds of warming over 5°C (9°F) if no action February 28, 2009 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declares a state of emergency in California - Drought. Friday afternoon after three years of below-average rain and snowfall in California, a step that urges urban water agencies to reduce water use by 20 percent. Mandatory rationing is an option if that and other measures prove insufficient. "This is a crisis, just as severe as an earthquake or raging wildfire, and we must treat it with the same urgency by upgrading California's water infrastructure to ensure a clean and reliable water supply for our growing state," he said ------------------ February 16, 2009 Effect of climate change on malarial mosquitoes may depend on daily temperature fluctuations http://www.tropika.net/svc/news/20090216/Chinnock-20090216-News-malaria-temperature ......................... VICTORIA is likely to come under the influence of another El Nino within the next three years, exacerbating the drought and the likelihood of bushfires, a senior Bureau of Meteorology climate scientist says. David Jones, the head of the bureau's National Climate Centre, said there was some risk of a worsening El Nino event this year, but it was more likely to arrive in 2010 or 2011. "We are in the build-up to the next El Nino and already the drought is as bad as it has ever been — in terms of the drought, this may be as good as things get," Dr Jones said. "And the repeated, severe bushfire seasons we have been seeing are a direct result of this very severe, protracted drought." http://www.theage.com.au/national/drought-and-fire-here-to-stay-with-el-ninos-return-20090216-899u.html .......................... SYDNEY: Scientists say that Australia can expect more of the scorching conditions that fanned the firestorms that killed at least 181 people this month, prompting a nationwide debate about how to prepare for a hotter, more fire-prone future. As investigators pick through the tangled wreckage left by Australia's deadliest wildfires, which flattened townships and destroyed more than 1,000 homes starting Feb. 7, a wide-ranging discussion has begun about the way the country handles wildfires - from greenhouse-gas emissions standards to planning codes to an emergency protocol that encourages people to stay and defend their properties. Wildfires have been a feature of the Australian landscape for centuries; thousands of fires burn across the continent each year. But scientists warn that the "Black Saturday" disaster is a sign of things to come as climate change brings hotter weather and less rain. http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/16/asia/climate.php ............................... Ethiopia: Climate Change Taking Toll On Livestock in Southern Lowlands – Study. Addis Ababa — Climate change-induced livestock diseases are causing more illness and death of livestock in southern lowlands of the country, a study conducted to assess the local level of impacts of climate change said. The study entitled: Climate Change-Induced Hazards, Impacts and Responses in Southern Ethiopia, carried out in the southern lowlands of Ethiopia's three selected zones- Borena, Guji and Omo Zones- in the Oromia SNNP regions said climatic change impacts on livelihoods particularly increased vulnerability to poverty and food insecurity as livestock possession of households during the past 20 years shows an overall decline. In Borena zone, for instance, the average number of livestock per household declined from 10 oxen, 35 cows and 33 goats to 3 oxen, 7 cows and 6 goats, the study said. The study also showed similar outcome in South Omo pastoralists as "the number of livestock decreased from 30 cows, 38 goats and 36 sheep to 21 cows, 23 goats and 21 sheep at present." "Tick and skin diseases on camels, cattle, goats and sheep as increasingly becoming common problems during severe droughts, the study found out, adding even camels and goats, considered more resistant to drought, are affected by the newly prevailing diseases," the study pointed out. http://allafrica.com/stories/200902160988.html .................................... Study: Birds wintering farther north could signal climate change Nearly 60% of birds spend winter farther north, study finds By Robert Annis Posted: February 16, 2009. Many Hoosiers delight in spying increasing numbers of robins and bluebirds braving Indiana winters, but researchers fear the wintering birds could be the canary in the coal mine signaling climate change. A recently released report by the National Audubon Society has tied changes in migratory bird habits to global warming. According to data from the group's annual Christmas bird count gathered over the past 40 years, nearly 60 percent of the 305 bird species sampled in North America now winter farther north than they did previously. Bird ranges can expand and shift for many reasons, among them urban sprawl, deforestation and the supplemental diet provided by backyard feeders. But researchers say the only explanation for why so many birds over such a broad area are wintering in more Northern locales is global warming. http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090216/LOCAL/902160360 .................................... Malaria Patterns May Be Altered By Climate Change. Posted on: Sunday, 15 February 2009, 15:05 CST Temperature is an important factor in the spread of malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases, but researchers who look at average monthly or annual temperatures are not seeing the whole picture. Global climate change will affect daily temperature variations, which can have a more pronounced effect on parasite development, according to a Penn State entomologist. "We need higher resolution environmental and biological data to understand how climate change will affect the spread of the malaria parasite," says Matthew Thomas, professor of entomology. "We need to understand temperature from the point of view of the mosquito." Female Anopheles mosquitoes spread malaria by biting infected humans and ingesting the malaria parasites along with the blood they need to reproduce other mosquitoes. In the mosquito's gut, the parasites are implanted in the gut wall where they develop into cyst-like structures and multiply. Once mature, the cysts burst releasing thousands of parasites, which migrate to the mosquito's salivary glands. The next time the mosquito bites a human, the parasites enter the human along with mosquito saliva. Except through blood transfusions, humans cannot directly spread malaria to other humans. http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1639582/malaria_patterns_may_be_altered_by_climate_change/ |
| Wake Up, Freak Out – then Get a Grip It’s much, much later than you think. This really isn’t about polar bears any more. At this very moment, the fate of civilization itself hangs in the balance. It turns out that the way we have been calculating the future impacts of climate change up to now has been missing a really important piece of the picture. It seems we are now dangerously close to the tipping point in the world's climate system; this is the point of no return, after which truly catastrophic changes become inevitable. |
| My Personal Position Regarding Climate Change and Global Warming. By Colin Andrews - November 22, 2009 I believe the most significant causes are man-made. That said we are way to far down the road to engage in arguments about who is to blame for climate change and if its caused by increases in the levels of CO2 or its this or that. Whether Al Gore is heading a secret agenda and even if he deserves his Nobel Peace Prize and the rest is of little immediate concern. The concern for most of us is that we begin to take all reasonable steps urgently to improve our stewardship of this planet, who ever or what ever the cause. Climate change is taking place and its late in the day for us to be attending to what we should have been doing when I was at primary school nearly sixty years ago. The evidence of increased levels of CO2 in tree rings and ice cores alone are plenty proof that dramatic increases are recent and so is the sudden onslaught of climate change itself. There is no question the snow is lacking on mountain tops and the ice is melting both top and bottom of our planet. Global temperatures are currently rising, ask those who have already had to move homes as a result - water is disappearing from regions where it has not done in known history. Whether man made or natural makes no difference to what we should be doing. The selfish manner with which we behave around energy and waste is staggering and irresponsible. To allow this to continue and deny our responsibilities will be a disgrace. We should drop the political hatchets on all sides and do what is right for the planet. How can that be wrong? |
Climate Change and the Time of Reckoning HERE
| Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist Months after the charade surrounding the alleged forged figures to support Climate Change, the truth slowly emerges and its not pleasant - The fraud was a fraud as many suspected - But Copenhagen has come and gone with a huge disappointment for our Kids - Mission accomplished and big industry gets straight back down to its dirty tricks: Sir John Houghton explains to Steve Connor how global warming sceptics have misrepresented his views Wednesday, 10 February 2010. Read article HERE. |
ABC News
Scientists discover huge seabed methane leak.
(Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic are the highest in 400,000
years.)
Posted Fri Mar 5, 2010 7:00am AEDT
Scientists have discovered the Arctic ocean seabed is leaking huge amounts of methane into the
atmosphere.
The research published in the journal Science shows the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic shelf,
which was thought to be a barrier sealing methane, is perforated.
Scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences say more methane will be released if the permafrost is
further destabilised.
CSIRO spokesman Pep Canadell says the study identifies a possibly overlooked source of methane in the
atmosphere.
"Maybe before we were wrongly attributing it to cows or rice paddies or whatever, all the major sources
of methane we have," Mr Canadell said.
"And now when we measure fluctuations in the atmospheric methane concentration we can more
properly attribute where these sources are coming from."
He says the study provides, for the first time, an estimate of the contribution of the Arctic to overall
methane emissions.
Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic are the highest in 400,000 years.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/05/2837124.htm?section=justin
Scientists discover huge seabed methane leak.
(Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic are the highest in 400,000
years.)
Posted Fri Mar 5, 2010 7:00am AEDT
Scientists have discovered the Arctic ocean seabed is leaking huge amounts of methane into the
atmosphere.
The research published in the journal Science shows the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic shelf,
which was thought to be a barrier sealing methane, is perforated.
Scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences say more methane will be released if the permafrost is
further destabilised.
CSIRO spokesman Pep Canadell says the study identifies a possibly overlooked source of methane in the
atmosphere.
"Maybe before we were wrongly attributing it to cows or rice paddies or whatever, all the major sources
of methane we have," Mr Canadell said.
"And now when we measure fluctuations in the atmospheric methane concentration we can more
properly attribute where these sources are coming from."
He says the study provides, for the first time, an estimate of the contribution of the Arctic to overall
methane emissions.
Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic are the highest in 400,000 years.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/05/2837124.htm?section=justin
Cyber Bullying Intensifies as Climate Data Questioned
Scientific America
News - March 1, 2010
Researchers must purge e-mail in-boxes daily of threatening correspondence, simply part of the job of
being a climate scientist
By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate
The e-mails come thick and fast every time NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt appears in the press.
Rude and crass e-mails. E-mails calling him a fraud, a cheat, a scumbag and much worse.
To Schmidt and other researchers purging their inboxes daily of such correspondence, the barrage is
simply part of the job of being a climate scientist. But others see the messages as threats and
intimidation—cyber-bullying meant to shut down debate and cow scientists into limiting their participation
in the public discourse.
"I get a lot of hate mail," said Schmidt, a climate modeler at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies who
also runs RealClimate.org, a website devoted to debunking myths and errors about climate change. "I get
a lot of praise mail, but pretty much every time I have a quote in a mainstream publication I'll get a string
of emails from various people accusing me of various misdemeanors and fantasizing about my life in
prison."
Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
has a 19-page document of "extremely foul, nasty, abusive" e-mails he's received just since November.
Australian author and academic Clive Hamilton noted that many of the country's most distinguished
climate scientists are increasingly the target of e-mail attacks aimed at driving them from the public
debate.
"The purpose of this new form of cyber-bullying seems clear; it is to upset and intimidate the targets,
making them reluctant to participate further in the climate change debate," Hamilton wrote in a column
published last week by Sydney's ABC News. "While the internet is often held up as the instrument of free
speech, it is often used for the opposite purpose, to drive people out of the public debate."
The bullying has long been part of life for many climate scientists. Retired NCAR climate scientist Tom
Wigley said he's been fighting it for the last 20 years or more. Most of the e-mails appear to be the work
of frustrated individuals, ranting into the ether, scientists say. But some appear to be the work of
coordinated campaigns, and many, scientists say, appear to be taking their cue from influential anti-
climate change advocates like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and ClimateDepot.com.
Scientists say the bullying, if anything, emboldens them. But it does have a cost.
Organized, "McCarthyite" tactics aimed at specific scientists by various groups can be stressful, Schmidt
said. "Frivolous" Freedom of Information Act requests can tie up considerable quantities of researchers'
time.
But worst of all, he said, are "intimidating letters" from congressional members threatening dire
consequences to scientists working on climate change.
"That is chilling the work of science in the agencies," Schmidt said. "It's certainly very off-putting for
scientists who want to talk about their stuff in public but fear the political consequences."
"Nobody wants to create an enemy on the Hill."
For the most part, the rants have remained just that - rants. Threats of physical harm remain rare and are
usually discounted, scientists say. "These people don't really know you," Schmidt added. "They're not
really talking about you. You're just a symbol that has an e-mail address."
The pace picked up late last year, when several years' worth of stolen correspondence among climate
scientists were published on the Web. The onslaught intensified as errors in the Intergovernmental Panel
of Climate Change's most recent report surfaced in January and policy makers and reporters began to
question what has become the gold standard of climate science.
What's clear is the e-mails show anger and hostility. There's no effort to ask questions or seek what
Trenberth called "the truth." Scientists aren't the only target; journalists covering the issue also routinely
find their inbox stuffed with epithets.
"They do not tend to be reasonable," said Rudy Baum, editor-in-chief of Chemical and Engineering News,
who has been covering science for the magazine for 30 years. "They do not seem to be interested in
dialogue. They are shrill, they are unfriendly, and they are bullying."
Why so much venom and vitriol?
The answer is simple, said Marc Morano, executive editor at ClimateDepot.com, who has spent years
trying to expose global warming hype: The public is bitterly angry at the "con job" perpetrated by climate
scientists.
"You have every aspect of our lives subject to regulatory control - down to the light bulbs we can put in -
based on climate science," Morano said. The researchers "never wanted to debate and they kept trying to
demand the debate was over."
"Whenever you have someone ginning up a crisis and wanting to take power, you're going to have anger,"
he added. "When you've been conned at a used car dealer, you don't go back cheerily and politely to talk
to them."
That neither the stolen correspondence nor the minor IPCC errors undermine the underlying science of
climate change hasn't checked the onslaught.
Trenberth says that is the most dispiriting aspect of the e-mails: Facts don't carry more weight in the
public debate. The nature of public discourse - be it climate change or health care - has changed;
information that does not fit one's worldview is now discounted or rejected.
Increasingly," wrote Pulitzer-prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr. in the Miami Herald recently, "we
are a people estranged from critical thinking, divorced from logic, alienated from even objective truth."
Added Trenberth: "In science there's a whole lot of facts and basic information on the nature of climate
change, but it's not being treated that way. It's being treated as opinion."
The attacks are not limited to climate research, either. Researchers working on Atrazine, a widely used
herbicide, bisphenol-a, a common plastic additive, and other environmental pollutants have received
similarly intimidating e-mails and even threats.
Determining whether any given e-mail is part of an organized campaign is difficult, said Richard
Littlemore, editor of DeSmog Blog and author of Climate Cover-up, an investigation of industry's effort to
undermine climate science.
But it's not happenstance, he said. The bullying doesn't start serendipitously or from scratch.
It starts with a paid campaigner - Morano; the International Climate Science Coalition's Tom Harris;
JunkScience.com publisher and Fox News commentator Steve Milloy - and filters out from there,
Littlemore said.
"They're the PR guys and they're in the game and taking money for what they do," he said. "They also
wind up recruiting other folks.... In many ways they're just dupes and sincerely believe they're standing
up for democracy."
"They're people whose world view is being disrupted by climate scientists," Littlemore added. "Sometimes
they end up being the most effective and vitriolic."
Morano, for his part, is unapologetic in his efforts to knock climate science down a notch.
He doesn't wish anyone harm. But he sees opportunity. "I seriously believe we should kick them while
they're down," he said. "They deserve to be publicly flogged."
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by
Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-cyber-bullying
Scientific America
News - March 1, 2010
Researchers must purge e-mail in-boxes daily of threatening correspondence, simply part of the job of
being a climate scientist
By Douglas Fischer and The Daily Climate
The e-mails come thick and fast every time NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt appears in the press.
Rude and crass e-mails. E-mails calling him a fraud, a cheat, a scumbag and much worse.
To Schmidt and other researchers purging their inboxes daily of such correspondence, the barrage is
simply part of the job of being a climate scientist. But others see the messages as threats and
intimidation—cyber-bullying meant to shut down debate and cow scientists into limiting their participation
in the public discourse.
"I get a lot of hate mail," said Schmidt, a climate modeler at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies who
also runs RealClimate.org, a website devoted to debunking myths and errors about climate change. "I get
a lot of praise mail, but pretty much every time I have a quote in a mainstream publication I'll get a string
of emails from various people accusing me of various misdemeanors and fantasizing about my life in
prison."
Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
has a 19-page document of "extremely foul, nasty, abusive" e-mails he's received just since November.
Australian author and academic Clive Hamilton noted that many of the country's most distinguished
climate scientists are increasingly the target of e-mail attacks aimed at driving them from the public
debate.
"The purpose of this new form of cyber-bullying seems clear; it is to upset and intimidate the targets,
making them reluctant to participate further in the climate change debate," Hamilton wrote in a column
published last week by Sydney's ABC News. "While the internet is often held up as the instrument of free
speech, it is often used for the opposite purpose, to drive people out of the public debate."
The bullying has long been part of life for many climate scientists. Retired NCAR climate scientist Tom
Wigley said he's been fighting it for the last 20 years or more. Most of the e-mails appear to be the work
of frustrated individuals, ranting into the ether, scientists say. But some appear to be the work of
coordinated campaigns, and many, scientists say, appear to be taking their cue from influential anti-
climate change advocates like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and ClimateDepot.com.
Scientists say the bullying, if anything, emboldens them. But it does have a cost.
Organized, "McCarthyite" tactics aimed at specific scientists by various groups can be stressful, Schmidt
said. "Frivolous" Freedom of Information Act requests can tie up considerable quantities of researchers'
time.
But worst of all, he said, are "intimidating letters" from congressional members threatening dire
consequences to scientists working on climate change.
"That is chilling the work of science in the agencies," Schmidt said. "It's certainly very off-putting for
scientists who want to talk about their stuff in public but fear the political consequences."
"Nobody wants to create an enemy on the Hill."
For the most part, the rants have remained just that - rants. Threats of physical harm remain rare and are
usually discounted, scientists say. "These people don't really know you," Schmidt added. "They're not
really talking about you. You're just a symbol that has an e-mail address."
The pace picked up late last year, when several years' worth of stolen correspondence among climate
scientists were published on the Web. The onslaught intensified as errors in the Intergovernmental Panel
of Climate Change's most recent report surfaced in January and policy makers and reporters began to
question what has become the gold standard of climate science.
What's clear is the e-mails show anger and hostility. There's no effort to ask questions or seek what
Trenberth called "the truth." Scientists aren't the only target; journalists covering the issue also routinely
find their inbox stuffed with epithets.
"They do not tend to be reasonable," said Rudy Baum, editor-in-chief of Chemical and Engineering News,
who has been covering science for the magazine for 30 years. "They do not seem to be interested in
dialogue. They are shrill, they are unfriendly, and they are bullying."
Why so much venom and vitriol?
The answer is simple, said Marc Morano, executive editor at ClimateDepot.com, who has spent years
trying to expose global warming hype: The public is bitterly angry at the "con job" perpetrated by climate
scientists.
"You have every aspect of our lives subject to regulatory control - down to the light bulbs we can put in -
based on climate science," Morano said. The researchers "never wanted to debate and they kept trying to
demand the debate was over."
"Whenever you have someone ginning up a crisis and wanting to take power, you're going to have anger,"
he added. "When you've been conned at a used car dealer, you don't go back cheerily and politely to talk
to them."
That neither the stolen correspondence nor the minor IPCC errors undermine the underlying science of
climate change hasn't checked the onslaught.
Trenberth says that is the most dispiriting aspect of the e-mails: Facts don't carry more weight in the
public debate. The nature of public discourse - be it climate change or health care - has changed;
information that does not fit one's worldview is now discounted or rejected.
Increasingly," wrote Pulitzer-prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr. in the Miami Herald recently, "we
are a people estranged from critical thinking, divorced from logic, alienated from even objective truth."
Added Trenberth: "In science there's a whole lot of facts and basic information on the nature of climate
change, but it's not being treated that way. It's being treated as opinion."
The attacks are not limited to climate research, either. Researchers working on Atrazine, a widely used
herbicide, bisphenol-a, a common plastic additive, and other environmental pollutants have received
similarly intimidating e-mails and even threats.
Determining whether any given e-mail is part of an organized campaign is difficult, said Richard
Littlemore, editor of DeSmog Blog and author of Climate Cover-up, an investigation of industry's effort to
undermine climate science.
But it's not happenstance, he said. The bullying doesn't start serendipitously or from scratch.
It starts with a paid campaigner - Morano; the International Climate Science Coalition's Tom Harris;
JunkScience.com publisher and Fox News commentator Steve Milloy - and filters out from there,
Littlemore said.
"They're the PR guys and they're in the game and taking money for what they do," he said. "They also
wind up recruiting other folks.... In many ways they're just dupes and sincerely believe they're standing
up for democracy."
"They're people whose world view is being disrupted by climate scientists," Littlemore added. "Sometimes
they end up being the most effective and vitriolic."
Morano, for his part, is unapologetic in his efforts to knock climate science down a notch.
He doesn't wish anyone harm. But he sees opportunity. "I seriously believe we should kick them while
they're down," he said. "They deserve to be publicly flogged."
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by
Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-cyber-bullying
Island in International dispute goes under - No doubt we will
still be arguing if Climate Change is real when we also go
under. Another Wake up call. (Colin Andrews)
Disputed isle in Bay of Bengal disappears into sea
By NIRMALA GEORGE, Associated Press Writer Nirmala George, Associated Press Writer – Wed
Mar 24, 9:29 am ET
NEW DELHI – For nearly 30 years, India and Bangladesh have argued over control of a tiny rock
island in the Bay of Bengal. Now rising sea levels have resolved the dispute for them: the island's gone.
New Moore Island in the Sunderbans has been completely submerged, said oceanographer Sugata
Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite
imagery and sea patrols, he said.
"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global
warming," said Hazra.
Scientists at the School of Oceanographic Studies at the university have noted an alarming increase in
the rate at which sea levels have risen over the past decade in the Bay of Bengal.
Until 2000, the sea levels rose about 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) a year, but over the last decade they
have been rising about 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) annually, he said.
Another nearby island, Lohachara, was submerged in 1996, forcing its inhabitants to move to the
mainland, while almost half the land of Ghoramara island was underwater, he said. At least 10 other
islands in the area were at risk as well, Hazra said.
"We will have ever larger numbers of people displaced from the Sunderbans as more island areas come
under water," he said.
Bangladesh, a low-lying delta nation of 150 million people, is one of the countries worst-affected by
global warming. Officials estimate 18 percent of Bangladesh's coastal area will be underwater and 20
million people will be displaced if sea levels rise 1 meter (3.3 feet) by 2050 as projected by some
climate models.
India and Bangladesh both claimed the empty New Moore Island, which is about 3.5 kilometers (2
miles) long and 3 kilometers (1.5 miles) wide. Bangladesh referred to the island as South Talpatti.
There were no permanent structures on New Moore, but India sent some paramilitary soldiers to its
rocky shores in 1981 to hoist its national flag.
The demarcation of the maritime boundary — and who controls the remaining islands — remains an
open issue between the two South Asian neighbors, despite the disappearance of New Moore, said an
official in India's foreign ministry, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not
authorized to speak on international disputes.
Bangladesh officials were not available for comment Wednesday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_sc/as_india_disappearing_island
still be arguing if Climate Change is real when we also go
under. Another Wake up call. (Colin Andrews)
Disputed isle in Bay of Bengal disappears into sea
By NIRMALA GEORGE, Associated Press Writer Nirmala George, Associated Press Writer – Wed
Mar 24, 9:29 am ET
NEW DELHI – For nearly 30 years, India and Bangladesh have argued over control of a tiny rock
island in the Bay of Bengal. Now rising sea levels have resolved the dispute for them: the island's gone.
New Moore Island in the Sunderbans has been completely submerged, said oceanographer Sugata
Hazra, a professor at Jadavpur University in Calcutta. Its disappearance has been confirmed by satellite
imagery and sea patrols, he said.
"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global
warming," said Hazra.
Scientists at the School of Oceanographic Studies at the university have noted an alarming increase in
the rate at which sea levels have risen over the past decade in the Bay of Bengal.
Until 2000, the sea levels rose about 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) a year, but over the last decade they
have been rising about 5 millimeters (0.2 inches) annually, he said.
Another nearby island, Lohachara, was submerged in 1996, forcing its inhabitants to move to the
mainland, while almost half the land of Ghoramara island was underwater, he said. At least 10 other
islands in the area were at risk as well, Hazra said.
"We will have ever larger numbers of people displaced from the Sunderbans as more island areas come
under water," he said.
Bangladesh, a low-lying delta nation of 150 million people, is one of the countries worst-affected by
global warming. Officials estimate 18 percent of Bangladesh's coastal area will be underwater and 20
million people will be displaced if sea levels rise 1 meter (3.3 feet) by 2050 as projected by some
climate models.
India and Bangladesh both claimed the empty New Moore Island, which is about 3.5 kilometers (2
miles) long and 3 kilometers (1.5 miles) wide. Bangladesh referred to the island as South Talpatti.
There were no permanent structures on New Moore, but India sent some paramilitary soldiers to its
rocky shores in 1981 to hoist its national flag.
The demarcation of the maritime boundary — and who controls the remaining islands — remains an
open issue between the two South Asian neighbors, despite the disappearance of New Moore, said an
official in India's foreign ministry, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not
authorized to speak on international disputes.
Bangladesh officials were not available for comment Wednesday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100324/ap_on_sc/as_india_disappearing_island
How Scientists Think — and Fight
March 29, 2010
Today’s guest blogger is the best science writer in the country named Steve Easterbrook. Steve is a
professor of computer science at the University of Toronto. He wrote a much admired comment on
RealClimate, which offers a rare look into the scientific mindset. Select the title to read the full article.
March 29, 2010
Today’s guest blogger is the best science writer in the country named Steve Easterbrook. Steve is a
professor of computer science at the University of Toronto. He wrote a much admired comment on
RealClimate, which offers a rare look into the scientific mindset. Select the title to read the full article.
40th Anniversary of Earth Day. Improvements but not enough.
April 22, 2010
Message from Al Gore and watch a remix of Earth Day. Select heading
April 22, 2010
Message from Al Gore and watch a remix of Earth Day. Select heading
Climate scientists plan campaign against global-warming skeptics
The American Geophysical Union plans to announce Monday that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on
the issue. The effort is a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on
greenhouse gas emissions.
By Neela Banerjee, Tribune Washington Bureau
November 7, 2010
Reporting from Washington — Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a
broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers
with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of
politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of
whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in last Tuesday's election.
On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to
announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and
the role of man-made air pollution.
Some are prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk-radio and
television shows.
John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to
climate-change skeptics, is pulling together a "Climate Rapid Response Team," which so far has more than three
dozen leading scientists to defend the consensus on global warming in the scientific community. Some are also
pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S.
high schools as early as this fall.
"This group feels strongly that science and politics can't be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to
not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate
science and its scientists," said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community
College in New York.
"We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is
not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."
During the recent election campaigns, skepticism about climate change became a rallying cry for many
Republican candidates. Of the more than 100 new Republican members of Congress, 50% are climate-change
skeptics, according to an analysis of campaign statements by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think
tank.
Prominent Republican congressmen such as Darrell Issa (R-Vista), Joe L. Barton (R- Texas) and F. James
Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) have pledged to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions. They say they also intend to probe the so-called Climategate scandal, in which
thousands of e-mails of leading climate scientists were hacked and released to the public late last year.
Climate-change skeptics argued that the sniping in some e-mails showed that scientists suppressed research by
skeptics and manipulated data. Five independent panels subsequently cleared the researchers involved and
validated the science.
"People who ask and accept taxpayer dollars shouldn't get bent of shape when asked to account for the
money," said James M. Taylor, a senior fellow and a specialist in global warming at the conservative Heartland
Institute in Chicago. "The budget is spiraling out of control while government is handing out billions of dollars in
grants to climate scientists, many of whom are unabashed activists."
Ongoing public interest in Climategate has prompted climate scientists to act.
The American Geological Union plan has attracted a large number of scientists in a short time because they
were eager to address what they see as climate misinformation, said Jeffrey Taylor, research fellow at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado and manager of the project.
Still, the scope of the group's work is limited, reflecting the ongoing reluctance among many scientists to
venture into politics.
In the week that Abraham and others have been marshaling the rapid-response team, 39 scientists agreed to
participate, including Richard Feely, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and
Michael Oppenheimer professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.
"People who've already dug their heels in, we're not going to change their opinions," Mandia said. "We're trying
to reach people who may not have an opinion or opinion based on limited information."
neela.banerjee@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times
The American Geophysical Union plans to announce Monday that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on
the issue. The effort is a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on
greenhouse gas emissions.
By Neela Banerjee, Tribune Washington Bureau
November 7, 2010
Reporting from Washington — Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a
broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers
with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of
politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of
whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in last Tuesday's election.
On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to
announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and
the role of man-made air pollution.
Some are prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk-radio and
television shows.
John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to
climate-change skeptics, is pulling together a "Climate Rapid Response Team," which so far has more than three
dozen leading scientists to defend the consensus on global warming in the scientific community. Some are also
pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S.
high schools as early as this fall.
"This group feels strongly that science and politics can't be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to
not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate
science and its scientists," said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community
College in New York.
"We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is
not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."
During the recent election campaigns, skepticism about climate change became a rallying cry for many
Republican candidates. Of the more than 100 new Republican members of Congress, 50% are climate-change
skeptics, according to an analysis of campaign statements by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think
tank.
Prominent Republican congressmen such as Darrell Issa (R-Vista), Joe L. Barton (R- Texas) and F. James
Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) have pledged to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions. They say they also intend to probe the so-called Climategate scandal, in which
thousands of e-mails of leading climate scientists were hacked and released to the public late last year.
Climate-change skeptics argued that the sniping in some e-mails showed that scientists suppressed research by
skeptics and manipulated data. Five independent panels subsequently cleared the researchers involved and
validated the science.
"People who ask and accept taxpayer dollars shouldn't get bent of shape when asked to account for the
money," said James M. Taylor, a senior fellow and a specialist in global warming at the conservative Heartland
Institute in Chicago. "The budget is spiraling out of control while government is handing out billions of dollars in
grants to climate scientists, many of whom are unabashed activists."
Ongoing public interest in Climategate has prompted climate scientists to act.
The American Geological Union plan has attracted a large number of scientists in a short time because they
were eager to address what they see as climate misinformation, said Jeffrey Taylor, research fellow at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado and manager of the project.
Still, the scope of the group's work is limited, reflecting the ongoing reluctance among many scientists to
venture into politics.
In the week that Abraham and others have been marshaling the rapid-response team, 39 scientists agreed to
participate, including Richard Feely, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and
Michael Oppenheimer professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.
"People who've already dug their heels in, we're not going to change their opinions," Mandia said. "We're trying
to reach people who may not have an opinion or opinion based on limited information."
neela.banerjee@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times
| HOME CONSCIOUSNESS UFOs PHOTOGRAPHY CROP CIRCLE RESEARCH PRESENTATIONS FARM MONITOR STORE MEDIA BIOGRAPHY 2012 DEBATE CLIMATE CHANGE QUOTATIONS LETTERS BLOG CONTACT OBSERVATORY WELLNESS |