83 days and counting

Hat tip to my friends at the Intersection - linked to your left, for this one. Astrophysicist urges presidential science debate

Passing the torch - NOAA's fleet moves forward

This week in Seattle, NOAA has both closed a chapter in its operation of science vessels and opened a new chapter in both ship operations and ocean exploration. The closing regards the decommissioning of the R/V John N. Cobb. The Cobb wa sthe oldest of NOAA's research vessels, and the last one with a wooden hull. I have a soft spot in my heart for wooden boats, as my long time readership of Wooden Boat magazine will no doubt attest.

I had the pleasure of walking her decks when I lived in Seattle. Her lines were sweet, and you could actually smell the fish oil and the salt air in all her spaces. The Cobb was an important part of NOAA's long history of fish science studies in Alaska every summer, as well as Puget Sound. Her crew are understandably saddened that she is now tied up permanently, but their many memories and many contributions will not soon be forgotten.

Across town, however, NOAA commissioned its newest ship, the Okeanos Explorer. The Explorer will now ply the seas to help unlock the mysteries of our deepest, darkest places. This is an entirely new mission for NOAA - one not driven by laws, lawsuits or Cogressional pork. For a few cool videos, see this link and this one (click on the title "Seattle Ship Will . . . ").

Sojoin me in thanking the Cobb and her crew for their service, and welcoming the Okeanos to the Nation's ocean fleet. It should be a great ride.

The solar revolution continues?

Now here's news: many of the Nation's larger retail chains are racing to install solar panels on the roofs of their buildings. Granted, it seems they want to do so in time to get a huge tax break. Even so, why is that bad? Government incentivised good, environmentally friendly behavior, and it worked!
I know, they should have done it because it is good for the environment. economic cost shouldn't be an issue. but to private business, who exist to make profits in the short term, cost is an issue. Sure, you'd expect Whole Foods to do this (and why they haven't done it nationally is a bit of a mystery), but WalMart? My guess is they not only figured the cost of the tax break, but looked at rising utility rates and decided to run their bottom line down by reducing grid reliance.
Look, if we are going to be successful at moving away from burning fossil fuels for electricity, and we need to, doesn't it make good business sense to create a climate where business makes money by doing so? Isn't that capitalism at its finest?

Climate change and our kids future

Sometimes I get the words right. Sometimes others do. Today, Thomas L. Friedman does. Read it. You will understand why I do what I do once you are done.

They still won't go - the Katrina Chronicles

In the Friday, 25 July 2008 Baton Rouge Advocate, there is an interesting and fundamentally sad article on Louisiana residents and their attitudes about hurricane evacuations. According to the story, 17% of those surveyed – almost all of whom likely suffered in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, would NOT leave their homes again if told to by authorities. And, as Jerry Sneed, director of the Office of Preparedness for the City of New Orleans, put it in the article - “I don’t know why they’re so reluctant,” he added. “It’s as if they don’t trust anybody.”

Well duh! Has he forgotten the days that New Orleans residents spent clinging to roof tops waiting to be rescued? Did it slip his mind how many residents of Chalmette, in St. Bernard Parish, returned to slabs instead of homes? Does he not know the area’s history enough to know how fiercely proud of their homes most of my fellow Louisianians are?

Here’s the thing. While I and many others worked really hard to put the area right after Katrina (I was a Corps of Engineers Blue Roof staffer in Hancock County, Mississippi), the overall government response was too slow, too small, and too disorganized to make much difference. Most of the reconstruction successes have come, not from anything FEMA did, but from church groups, not for profits, and, of all things, the Amish community. I was on the ground, picking my way through broken house, crumpled roads, and downed power lines while FEMA contractors sat in air conditioned call centers wondering why no one was calling in for help. Seriously. So when I hear emergency officials ask why no one on the Gulf Coast trusts government, especially as related to hurricanes. I can only shake my head. They STILL don’t get it.

Taking a virtual leap of faith

In which I take on big time science blogging

Alaska Burns - and Global Climate change looses

Burning the Alaskan wilderness seems to have an impact on tundra temperatures. On the one hand, this shouldn’t be news. Anyone who has watched the temperature plummet after a good rain fall under a black cloud knows that if you limit how much sun reaches you, you can cool off. And anyone who has ready about Pompeii or any other catastrophic volcano has probably heard about lowered temperatures lasting weeks.

Back in the 1980’s there were many “doom and gloom” scenarios about Nuclear Winter , all variations on the theme that with a Mutually Assured Destruction type exchange between the US and USSR, the amount of debris and fallout would darken the skies for years. This would plunge us all into winter, causing further hardship for the survivors of the war.

Based on this climate work, it seems they were right about that one, though the scientists caution about the usual uncertainties that come with their work. And there is where I have a problem with the language. You see, too many scientists think that because they understand statistical uncertainty, everyone does. So they don’t bother to explain statements about how something “might” be caused by something else, or what they mean by an event being “highly likely.” By approaching their topic this way, scientists leave themselves open to criticism from groups opposed to whatever principle they are advocating. Doubly so for anything having to do with Anthropogenic Global Warming.

So, by being open and honest about the uncertainty surrounding the impacts of forest fire smoke on tundra, as these scientists are at the end of the article, they leave open a small door for others to take their conclusions and run in a totally inappropriate direction. “See,” those opposed to human climate impacts will say,” nature caused Alaska and Canada to burn, and the fires LOWERED temperatures in Arctic regions. Those fires were x times as much (or as little) as the carbon we generate in our powerplant/manufacturing plant/tailpipes, and it helped lower the temperature. So humans can’t raising the temperature by burning stuff. All this global climate change language is just a scare tactic.” Or something like that.