The Daily Mail, on the 26th of March 2009, reports on a talk given by an Archbishop where he warns people that God will not intervene to stop runway climate change.
God is not going to intervene to prevent humanity from wreaking disastrous damage to the environment, the Archbishop of Canterbury warned last night as he called for a 'radical change of heart' to prevent runaway climate change.
Dr Rowan Williams said there needed to be a 'conversion' by humanity away from selfishness and greed that leads us to turn a 'blind eye' to the destruction of the environment and to our interdependence with the natural world.
Without a change of heart, Dr Williams warned, the world faced a number of 'doomsday scenarios' including the 'ultimate tragedy' of humanity gradually 'choked, drowned, or starved by its own stupidity.'
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Friday, 6 March 2009
'No proof' of bee killer theory
The BBC website, on the 5th of March 2009, reports that there is no evidence of CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder) that is killing large numbers of Bees throughout the world.
Scientists say there is no proof that a mysterious disease blamed for the deaths of billions of bees actually exists, the BBC has been told.
Dr Dennis Anderson, principal research scientist on entomology with the Australian research organisation CSIRO said the term could be distracting scientists from other work:
"It's misleading in the fact that the general public and beekeepers and now even researchers are under the impression that we've got some mysterious disorder here in our bees.
"And so researchers around the world are running round trying to find the cause of the disorder - and there's absolutely no proof that there's a disorder there."
Many experts speak about a "perfect storm" of impacts that are the real reason for the decline.
Some critics of the bee industry have called the whole concept of CCD a hoax, a public relations stunt designed to attract public sympathy.
Scientists say there is no proof that a mysterious disease blamed for the deaths of billions of bees actually exists, the BBC has been told.
Dr Dennis Anderson, principal research scientist on entomology with the Australian research organisation CSIRO said the term could be distracting scientists from other work:
"It's misleading in the fact that the general public and beekeepers and now even researchers are under the impression that we've got some mysterious disorder here in our bees.
"And so researchers around the world are running round trying to find the cause of the disorder - and there's absolutely no proof that there's a disorder there."
Many experts speak about a "perfect storm" of impacts that are the real reason for the decline.
Some critics of the bee industry have called the whole concept of CCD a hoax, a public relations stunt designed to attract public sympathy.
Thursday, 26 February 2009
4C rise will threaten human survival
The Daily Mail’s website, on the 26th of February 2009, has an article about a report detailing how a 4C temperature rise this century will threaten human survival and change the world beyond recognition.
As part of their research into the article the New Scientist spoke to leading climate experts from around the world to create a map of how our world might look 4C warmer.
Rivers from the Danube to the Rhine would be reduced to a trickle while melting glaciers and storm surges would drown coastal regions under two metres of water.
Humans will become mostly vegetarian with most animals being eaten to extinction by desperate people.
Large chunks of Earth's biodiversity would vanish because they could not adapt in such a short time.
In the world's oceans, numbers of fish would drop dramatically as acid levels rose because of decreasing plankton.
'I think they'll survive as a species all right, but the cull during this century is going to be huge,' former Nasa scientists James Lovelock said.
'The number remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less.'
As part of their research into the article the New Scientist spoke to leading climate experts from around the world to create a map of how our world might look 4C warmer.
Rivers from the Danube to the Rhine would be reduced to a trickle while melting glaciers and storm surges would drown coastal regions under two metres of water.
Humans will become mostly vegetarian with most animals being eaten to extinction by desperate people.
Large chunks of Earth's biodiversity would vanish because they could not adapt in such a short time.
In the world's oceans, numbers of fish would drop dramatically as acid levels rose because of decreasing plankton.
'I think they'll survive as a species all right, but the cull during this century is going to be huge,' former Nasa scientists James Lovelock said.
'The number remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less.'
Friday, 13 February 2009
Save up fossil fuel reserves to fight the next ice age
The Register website, on the 13th of February 2009, has an article about a Danish scientist that is telling us to stop using all the world’s fossil fuels and save them for the next ice age.
According to Shaffer [Professor Gary Shaffer] "the greatest climate challenge mankind has faced has been surviving ice ages that have dominated climate during the past million years".
But there's no need to panic. By burning fossil fuels, we have already put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to stand off ice ages for 55,000 years. Shaffer thinks it would make sense to save a lot of the remaining fossil reserves for the far future, when we'd need to bump up atmospheric carbon or face life in the deep freeze.
“Fossil fuel reserves may be too valuable for regulating climate far into the future to allow the reserves to be consumed within the next few centuries,"
According to Shaffer [Professor Gary Shaffer] "the greatest climate challenge mankind has faced has been surviving ice ages that have dominated climate during the past million years".
But there's no need to panic. By burning fossil fuels, we have already put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to stand off ice ages for 55,000 years. Shaffer thinks it would make sense to save a lot of the remaining fossil reserves for the far future, when we'd need to bump up atmospheric carbon or face life in the deep freeze.
“Fossil fuel reserves may be too valuable for regulating climate far into the future to allow the reserves to be consumed within the next few centuries,"
UK's ex-science chief predicts century of 'resource' wars
The Guardian newspaper, on the 13th of February 2009, reports on a talk given by the Sir David King where he says this century with be full or wars over resources like oil and water.
The Iraq war was just the first of this century's "resource wars", in which powerful countries use force to secure valuable commodities, according to the UK government's former chief scientific adviser. Sir David King predicts that with population growth, natural resources dwindling, and seas rising due to climate change, the squeeze on the planet will lead to more conflict.
"Unless we get to grips with this problem globally, we potentially are going to lead ourselves into a situation where large, powerful nations will secure resources for their own people at the expense of others."
King summed up by saying that with growing population and dwindling resources, fundamental changes to the global economy and society were necessary. "Consumerism has been a wonderful model for growing up economies in the 20th century. Is that model fit for purpose in the 21st century, when resource shortage is our biggest challenge?"
The Iraq war was just the first of this century's "resource wars", in which powerful countries use force to secure valuable commodities, according to the UK government's former chief scientific adviser. Sir David King predicts that with population growth, natural resources dwindling, and seas rising due to climate change, the squeeze on the planet will lead to more conflict.
"Unless we get to grips with this problem globally, we potentially are going to lead ourselves into a situation where large, powerful nations will secure resources for their own people at the expense of others."
King summed up by saying that with growing population and dwindling resources, fundamental changes to the global economy and society were necessary. "Consumerism has been a wonderful model for growing up economies in the 20th century. Is that model fit for purpose in the 21st century, when resource shortage is our biggest challenge?"
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Dark comets may be on collision course with Earth
The Daily Mail newspaper, on the 12th of February 2009, has an article about comets that can not been seen and could collide with Earth without warning.
Thousands of invisible 'dark' comets may be posing an unseen threat to Earth, according to two British astronomers.
Professor Bill Napier, from the University of Cardiff, told New Scientist magazine: 'There is a case to be made that dark, dormant comets are a significant but largely unseen hazard.'
The rate that bright comets pass through the Solar System suggests there should be 3,000 of them flying around, yet only 25 have been detected. Most may have remained hidden because they are too dark to see, say the astronomers.
Thousands of invisible 'dark' comets may be posing an unseen threat to Earth, according to two British astronomers.
Professor Bill Napier, from the University of Cardiff, told New Scientist magazine: 'There is a case to be made that dark, dormant comets are a significant but largely unseen hazard.'
The rate that bright comets pass through the Solar System suggests there should be 3,000 of them flying around, yet only 25 have been detected. Most may have remained hidden because they are too dark to see, say the astronomers.
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
'Apocalyptic climate predictions' mislead the public
The Guardian website, on the 11th of February 2009, has an article about the Met Office moaning that there are too many alarmist reports about Climate Change and it is having a negative affect on the public.
Experts at Britain's top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming.
The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent "apocalyptic predictions" about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. Such statements, however well-intentioned, distort the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions, it says.
"It is easy for scientists to grab attention by linking climate change to the latest extreme weather event or apocalyptic prediction. But in doing so, the public perception of climate change can be distorted. The reality is that extreme events arise when natural variations in the weather and climate combine with long-term climate change."
The criticism reflects mounting concern at the Met Office that the global warming debate risks being hijacked by people on both sides who push their own agendas and interests.
Experts at Britain's top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming.
The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent "apocalyptic predictions" about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. Such statements, however well-intentioned, distort the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions, it says.
"It is easy for scientists to grab attention by linking climate change to the latest extreme weather event or apocalyptic prediction. But in doing so, the public perception of climate change can be distorted. The reality is that extreme events arise when natural variations in the weather and climate combine with long-term climate change."
The criticism reflects mounting concern at the Met Office that the global warming debate risks being hijacked by people on both sides who push their own agendas and interests.
Monday, 2 February 2009
Plight of the humble bee
The Times online, on the 1st of February 2009, has an article where the worst case scenario is give to highlight the continuing disaster of the slow extinction of bees in the UK.
Native British bees are dying out — and with them will go flora, fauna and one-third of our diet. We may have less than a decade to save them and avert catastrophe. So why is nothing being done?
…and that is the thin end of the long-term catastrophe that now stares us in the face. You take one brick out of the ecological wall, others crumble around it. Then more crumble, on and on until the edifice collapses. Ecologists call it an extinction vortex. You lose bees, you lose plants. You lose plants, you lose more bees. Then more plants, then other insects, then the birds and animals that depend on them and on each other, all the way up the food chain. But never mind animals — if you stretch the process far enough, you’re talking about humans.
“The wars for control of the dwindling resources, the suffering, and the tumultuous decline to dark-age barbarism would be unprecedented in human history.” Wilson concedes that we might survive quite happily without body lice and malarial mosquitoes. Otherwise, he says: “Do not give thought to diminishing the insect world. It would be a serious mistake to let even one species of the millions on Earth go extinct.”
In November 2007 the then food-and-farming minister, Lord Rooker, declared in the House of Lords that if things went on as they were, the honeybee in the UK would be extinct within 10 years. The situation since then has worsened, so at the best estimate the 10 years have shrunk to eight.
Native British bees are dying out — and with them will go flora, fauna and one-third of our diet. We may have less than a decade to save them and avert catastrophe. So why is nothing being done?
…and that is the thin end of the long-term catastrophe that now stares us in the face. You take one brick out of the ecological wall, others crumble around it. Then more crumble, on and on until the edifice collapses. Ecologists call it an extinction vortex. You lose bees, you lose plants. You lose plants, you lose more bees. Then more plants, then other insects, then the birds and animals that depend on them and on each other, all the way up the food chain. But never mind animals — if you stretch the process far enough, you’re talking about humans.
“The wars for control of the dwindling resources, the suffering, and the tumultuous decline to dark-age barbarism would be unprecedented in human history.” Wilson concedes that we might survive quite happily without body lice and malarial mosquitoes. Otherwise, he says: “Do not give thought to diminishing the insect world. It would be a serious mistake to let even one species of the millions on Earth go extinct.”
In November 2007 the then food-and-farming minister, Lord Rooker, declared in the House of Lords that if things went on as they were, the honeybee in the UK would be extinct within 10 years. The situation since then has worsened, so at the best estimate the 10 years have shrunk to eight.
Thursday, 29 January 2009
LHC may not be as safe as we thought
The vnunet.com website, on the 29th of January 2009, comments on new research that shows the calculations made on the LHC could have been wrong and it may be more dangerous than first thought.
New research by three physicists has raised concerns over the safety of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is due to restart this summer.
Before the LHC’s first operations began concerns were raised that the activities within the 27 km particle accelerator could create black holes, which could in turn destroy the planet. A lawsuit was even filed to prevent the LHC from operation and sparked ribaldry from internet users.
CERN, which operates the LHC, commissioned an extensive study that concluded that if black holes were formed by the LHC then they would last for only milliseconds before extinguishing themselves.
However, a new study by Roberto Casadio of the University of Bologna in Italy and Sergio Fabi and Benjamin Harms of the University of Alabama has concluded that the black holes could survive for more than a second.
The danger would occur if the black holes stayed in existence long enough to absorb material and become self sustaining but the three say it is more likely that they would either collapse or stabilise at a very small level and drift out into space.
The LHC has been tested but it was never working fully and it did not smash any particles together. Therefore the past fears that were made when the LHC was first turned on have not gone away. We will not know if the LHC will kill us all until it is fixed and full working later this year.
New research by three physicists has raised concerns over the safety of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is due to restart this summer.
Before the LHC’s first operations began concerns were raised that the activities within the 27 km particle accelerator could create black holes, which could in turn destroy the planet. A lawsuit was even filed to prevent the LHC from operation and sparked ribaldry from internet users.
CERN, which operates the LHC, commissioned an extensive study that concluded that if black holes were formed by the LHC then they would last for only milliseconds before extinguishing themselves.
However, a new study by Roberto Casadio of the University of Bologna in Italy and Sergio Fabi and Benjamin Harms of the University of Alabama has concluded that the black holes could survive for more than a second.
The danger would occur if the black holes stayed in existence long enough to absorb material and become self sustaining but the three say it is more likely that they would either collapse or stabilise at a very small level and drift out into space.
The LHC has been tested but it was never working fully and it did not smash any particles together. Therefore the past fears that were made when the LHC was first turned on have not gone away. We will not know if the LHC will kill us all until it is fixed and full working later this year.
Apocalypse 2012 sparks online frenzy
The Times of India website, on the 29th of January 2009, comments on growing speculation of the possible doomsday event surrounding the Maya calendar and its 2012 deadline.
The year 2012 is claimed by some with New Age beliefs to be a great year of spiritual transformation. Now, fuelled by a crop of books, websites with countdown clocks, and claims about ancient timekeepers, many see it as an expiration date for earth: December 21, 2012.
The date marks the end of a 5,126-year cycle on the Long Count calendar developed by the Maya, the ancient civilization known for its advanced understanding of astronomy and for the great cities it left behind in Mexico and Central America. Speculation in some circles about whether the Maya chose this time as they thought something ominous would happen has sparked a number of doomsday theories.
But take the fact that December 21, 2012, coincides with the winter solstice, add claims the Maya picked the time period because it also marks an alignment of the sun with the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, and you have the makings of an online sensation. Type “2012” into a search engine and you’ll find survival guides, predictions and stuff to wear, including T-shirts with slogans such as “2012 The End” and “Doomsday 2012.”
There is always money to be made from scaring people. The only problem they have is creating new threats that gullible people will believe. No doubt we will hear more and more about this as we get closer to the deadline.
The year 2012 is claimed by some with New Age beliefs to be a great year of spiritual transformation. Now, fuelled by a crop of books, websites with countdown clocks, and claims about ancient timekeepers, many see it as an expiration date for earth: December 21, 2012.
The date marks the end of a 5,126-year cycle on the Long Count calendar developed by the Maya, the ancient civilization known for its advanced understanding of astronomy and for the great cities it left behind in Mexico and Central America. Speculation in some circles about whether the Maya chose this time as they thought something ominous would happen has sparked a number of doomsday theories.
But take the fact that December 21, 2012, coincides with the winter solstice, add claims the Maya picked the time period because it also marks an alignment of the sun with the centre of the Milky Way galaxy, and you have the makings of an online sensation. Type “2012” into a search engine and you’ll find survival guides, predictions and stuff to wear, including T-shirts with slogans such as “2012 The End” and “Doomsday 2012.”
There is always money to be made from scaring people. The only problem they have is creating new threats that gullible people will believe. No doubt we will hear more and more about this as we get closer to the deadline.
Monday, 26 January 2009
Global warming could suffocate the sea
The New Scientist website, on the 25th of January 2009, reports on a study that says large parts of the oceans will become lifeless because of Global Warming.
Fish could vanish from huge stretches of the ocean for tens of thousands of years unless we drastically reduce our carbon emissions.
Gary Shaffer of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and his colleagues used computer models to analyse the long-term impact of global warming on the oceans, looking up to 100,000 years into the future. This is important because less oxygen dissolves in warmer water, affecting the amount of life the oceans can support.
Under the worst-case scenario, average ocean oxygen levels will fall by up to 40%, and there will be a 20-fold expansion in the area of "dead zones", like those already discovered in the eastern Pacific and northern Indian Ocean, where there is too little oxygen for fish to survive. Even in the mid-range scenario, dead zones would expand by a factor of 3 or 4. Cold, deep waters will also be affected if warming stifles the currents that deliver oxygen to greater depths.
Fish could vanish from huge stretches of the ocean for tens of thousands of years unless we drastically reduce our carbon emissions.
Gary Shaffer of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and his colleagues used computer models to analyse the long-term impact of global warming on the oceans, looking up to 100,000 years into the future. This is important because less oxygen dissolves in warmer water, affecting the amount of life the oceans can support.
Under the worst-case scenario, average ocean oxygen levels will fall by up to 40%, and there will be a 20-fold expansion in the area of "dead zones", like those already discovered in the eastern Pacific and northern Indian Ocean, where there is too little oxygen for fish to survive. Even in the mid-range scenario, dead zones would expand by a factor of 3 or 4. Cold, deep waters will also be affected if warming stifles the currents that deliver oxygen to greater depths.
Monday, 19 January 2009
President 'has four years to save Earth'
The Guardian newspaper, on Sunday the 18th of January 2009, has an article telling us that the new president Barack Obama needs to work fast to stop climate change from destroying the Earth.
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.
Soaring carbon emissions are already causing ice-cap melting and threaten to trigger global flooding, widespread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns in the near future. "We cannot afford to put off change any longer," said Hansen. "We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."
Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.
Soaring carbon emissions are already causing ice-cap melting and threaten to trigger global flooding, widespread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns in the near future. "We cannot afford to put off change any longer," said Hansen. "We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."
Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.
Monday, 12 January 2009
Billions face food shortages
The Guardian newspaper, on the 9th of January 2009, looks at a report that by 2100 billions of people will starve because of global warming.
Half of the world's population could face severe food shortages by the end of the century as rising temperatures take their toll on farmers' crops, scientists have warned.
"The stress on global food production from temperatures alone is going to be huge, and that doesn't take into account water supplies stressed by the higher temperatures," said David Battisti, at the University of Washington, who led the study.
"When we looked at our historical examples there were ways to address the problem within a given year," Naylor said. "People could always turn somewhere else to find food. But in the future there's not going to be any place to turn unless we rethink our food supplies."
Half of the world's population could face severe food shortages by the end of the century as rising temperatures take their toll on farmers' crops, scientists have warned.
"The stress on global food production from temperatures alone is going to be huge, and that doesn't take into account water supplies stressed by the higher temperatures," said David Battisti, at the University of Washington, who led the study.
"When we looked at our historical examples there were ways to address the problem within a given year," Naylor said. "People could always turn somewhere else to find food. But in the future there's not going to be any place to turn unless we rethink our food supplies."
Doomsday Device
The Cosmos magazine website, on the 9th of January 2009, had an article about five possible catastrophes that could wipe out civilisation. One of them was of a doomsday device.
"The biggest threats to humanity arise from humanity," says Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Britain's University of Oxford and cofounder of the World Transhumanist Association. "Our species has survived volcanic eruptions, meteoric impacts, and other natural hazards for tens of thousands of years. It seems unlikely that any of these old risks should exterminate us in the near future. By contrast, human civilisation is introducing many novel phenomena into the world, ranging from nuclear weapons to designer pathogens to high-energy particle colliders."
We need only reflect on the notion that the closest humanity has recently come to annihilation – with the possible exception of the Lake Toba supervolcano eruption 70,000 years ago – was during the Cold War, when the U.S. and former Soviet Union engaged in games of nuclear brinkmanship, particularly over Cuba in 1962.
And as technology advances, allowing the development of even more destructive weapons, and time makes it ever more likely they'll fall into even less responsible hands, the 21st century could prove even more dangerous than the 20th.
"The biggest threats to humanity arise from humanity," says Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Britain's University of Oxford and cofounder of the World Transhumanist Association. "Our species has survived volcanic eruptions, meteoric impacts, and other natural hazards for tens of thousands of years. It seems unlikely that any of these old risks should exterminate us in the near future. By contrast, human civilisation is introducing many novel phenomena into the world, ranging from nuclear weapons to designer pathogens to high-energy particle colliders."
We need only reflect on the notion that the closest humanity has recently come to annihilation – with the possible exception of the Lake Toba supervolcano eruption 70,000 years ago – was during the Cold War, when the U.S. and former Soviet Union engaged in games of nuclear brinkmanship, particularly over Cuba in 1962.
And as technology advances, allowing the development of even more destructive weapons, and time makes it ever more likely they'll fall into even less responsible hands, the 21st century could prove even more dangerous than the 20th.
Five Ways the World Can End
The Fox News website, on the 6th of January 2009, has an article listing 5 interesting ways the world could end.
How many ways can the world end? We can think of at least five.
Massive asteroid impact
Asteroids and comets crash into our planet all the time, with varying degrees of damage. The last big one was 100 years ago in Siberia, but in such a remote area that no one died.
Massive volcanic eruptions
An alternate theory for the low, flat, featureless Martian northern hemisphere is that huge lava flows simply erased any previous features.
Similarly, there's good evidence that the dinosaurs back on Earth were killed not by an asteroid, but instead, or additionally, by enormous eruptions in what now is India.
Nuclear war
Few people have uttered the phrase "nuclear winter" since the end of the Cold War, but it was a very real fear during the 1980s.The odds of total nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia seem remote now, and no other nations currently have the thousands of warheads it would take for such a doomsday scenario to occur. But there's always a chance of a full-scale nuclear exchange between future superpowers.
Black hole
Bottomless gravitational pits from which not even light can escape were first theorized in the 1960s, but since then they've been "spotted" throughout the universe.
The expanding sun
If all else fails, the Earth will almost certainly come to an end in about 5 billion years when it falls into the expanding sun.
How many ways can the world end? We can think of at least five.
Massive asteroid impact
Asteroids and comets crash into our planet all the time, with varying degrees of damage. The last big one was 100 years ago in Siberia, but in such a remote area that no one died.
Massive volcanic eruptions
An alternate theory for the low, flat, featureless Martian northern hemisphere is that huge lava flows simply erased any previous features.
Similarly, there's good evidence that the dinosaurs back on Earth were killed not by an asteroid, but instead, or additionally, by enormous eruptions in what now is India.
Nuclear war
Few people have uttered the phrase "nuclear winter" since the end of the Cold War, but it was a very real fear during the 1980s.The odds of total nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia seem remote now, and no other nations currently have the thousands of warheads it would take for such a doomsday scenario to occur. But there's always a chance of a full-scale nuclear exchange between future superpowers.
Black hole
Bottomless gravitational pits from which not even light can escape were first theorized in the 1960s, but since then they've been "spotted" throughout the universe.
The expanding sun
If all else fails, the Earth will almost certainly come to an end in about 5 billion years when it falls into the expanding sun.
NASA warns of 'space Katrina' radiation storm
The Register website, on the 7th of January 2009, has an article about a report from NASA warning us about the possible disaster from the biggest solar storm we have seen in many years.
"Whether it is terrestrial catastrophes or extreme space weather incidents, the results can be devastating to modern societies that depend in a myriad of ways on advanced technological systems," says Professor Daniel Baker of Colorado Uni, an expert in atmospheric and space physics who led the report's authors.
In essence, the report, says that sooner or later there will be a solar storm much more powerful than any seen so far in the age of high technology. Such events have occurred in the past, but as the human race then had very basic electrical power grids (or none at all) and made no use of satellites, it didn't matter.
The next space radiation biggy, however, will hit a human civilisation which is becoming more and more dependent on satellites for essential communication and navigation tasks, and whose electrical grids are much more widespread and heavily stressed.
The impact on satellites would be even more severe, as spacecraft have less shielding from the Earth's atmosphere - and in some cases from the magnetosphere. In particular, the present Global Positioning System (GPS) sat constellation, used by almost every navigation system in the world, is regarded as highly vulnerable to a solar event.
"Whether it is terrestrial catastrophes or extreme space weather incidents, the results can be devastating to modern societies that depend in a myriad of ways on advanced technological systems," says Professor Daniel Baker of Colorado Uni, an expert in atmospheric and space physics who led the report's authors.
In essence, the report, says that sooner or later there will be a solar storm much more powerful than any seen so far in the age of high technology. Such events have occurred in the past, but as the human race then had very basic electrical power grids (or none at all) and made no use of satellites, it didn't matter.
The next space radiation biggy, however, will hit a human civilisation which is becoming more and more dependent on satellites for essential communication and navigation tasks, and whose electrical grids are much more widespread and heavily stressed.
The impact on satellites would be even more severe, as spacecraft have less shielding from the Earth's atmosphere - and in some cases from the magnetosphere. In particular, the present Global Positioning System (GPS) sat constellation, used by almost every navigation system in the world, is regarded as highly vulnerable to a solar event.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Galactic collision will happen sooner than scientists thought
The Guardian website, on the 5th of January 2009, has an article about the miscalculation of the size of our galaxy and how it means its collision will its neighbour will happen sooner.
According to their most detailed measurements yet, scientists admitted to having grossly underestimated the mass of the Milky Way, and so the gravitational pull it exerts on our cosmic neighbours, including the giant Andromeda galaxy.
The oversight means that the two galaxies, which are on a cataclysmic collision course, will slam into one another earlier than scientists had previously predicted.
Fortunately the galactic disaster still lies unfathomably far into the future.
Astronomers believe the crunch to end all crunches could happen around the same time our sun is due to burn up the last of its nuclear fuel, within the next 7bn years. It is highly unlikely that planets and stars will collide. Instead the two galaxies will merge to form a new, large galaxy.
According to their most detailed measurements yet, scientists admitted to having grossly underestimated the mass of the Milky Way, and so the gravitational pull it exerts on our cosmic neighbours, including the giant Andromeda galaxy.
The oversight means that the two galaxies, which are on a cataclysmic collision course, will slam into one another earlier than scientists had previously predicted.
Fortunately the galactic disaster still lies unfathomably far into the future.
Astronomers believe the crunch to end all crunches could happen around the same time our sun is due to burn up the last of its nuclear fuel, within the next 7bn years. It is highly unlikely that planets and stars will collide. Instead the two galaxies will merge to form a new, large galaxy.
Monday, 5 January 2009
The carbon footprint of nuclear war
On the Guardian’s website, on the 5th of January 2009, there is an article about a study that calculated the amount of C02 released in a nuclear war.
Just when you might have thought it was ethically sound to unleash a nuclear attack on a nearby city, along comes a pesky scientist and points out that atomic warfare is bad for the climate. According to a new paper in the journal Energy & Environmental Science, even a very limited nuclear exchange, using just a thousandth of the weaponry of a fullscale nuclear war, would cause up to 690m tonnes of CO2 to enter the atmosphere – more than UK's annual total.
The upside (kind of) is that the conflict would also generate as much as 313m tonnes of soot. This would stop a great deal of sunlight reaching the earth, creating a significant regional cooling effect in the short and medium terms – just like when a major volcano erupts. Ultimately, though, the CO2 would win out and crank up global temperatures an extra few notches.
Just when you might have thought it was ethically sound to unleash a nuclear attack on a nearby city, along comes a pesky scientist and points out that atomic warfare is bad for the climate. According to a new paper in the journal Energy & Environmental Science, even a very limited nuclear exchange, using just a thousandth of the weaponry of a fullscale nuclear war, would cause up to 690m tonnes of CO2 to enter the atmosphere – more than UK's annual total.
The upside (kind of) is that the conflict would also generate as much as 313m tonnes of soot. This would stop a great deal of sunlight reaching the earth, creating a significant regional cooling effect in the short and medium terms – just like when a major volcano erupts. Ultimately, though, the CO2 would win out and crank up global temperatures an extra few notches.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Climate scientists: it's time for 'Plan B'
The Independent newspaper, on the 2nd of January 2009, has an article on how cutting back on C02 has failed and the only option we now have is to go for “Plan B”.
An emergency "Plan B" using the latest technology is needed to save the world from dangerous climate change, according to a poll of leading scientists carried out by The Independent. The collective international failure to curb the growing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has meant that an alternative to merely curbing emissions may become necessary.
The plan would involve highly controversial proposals to lower global temperatures artificially through daringly ambitious schemes that either reduce sunlight levels by man-made means or take CO2 out of the air. This "geoengineering" approach – including schemes such as fertilising the oceans with iron to stimulate algal blooms – would have been dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but is now being seen by the majority of scientists we surveyed as a viable emergency backup plan that could save the planet from the worst effects of climate change, at least until deep cuts are made in CO2 emissions.
Professor James Lovelock, a geo-scientist and author of the Gaia hypothesis, in which the Earth is a quasi-living organism, is one of those who is less optimistic. He believes that a plan B is urgently needed. "I never thought that the Kyoto agreement would lead to any useful cut back in greenhouse gas emissions so I am neither more nor less optimistic now about prospect of curbing CO2 compared to 10 years ago. I am, however, less optimistic now about the ability of the Earth's climate system to cope with expected increases in atmospheric carbon levels compared with 10 years ago," he told The Independent. "I strongly agree that we now need a 'plan B' where a geoengineering strategy is drawn up in parallel with other measures to curb CO2 emissions."
The possible methods of saving the planet include the following.
1. Injecting the air with particles to reflect sunlight
2. Creating low clouds over the oceans
3. Fertilising the sea with iron filings
4. Mixing the deep water of the ocean
5. Giant mirrors in space
An emergency "Plan B" using the latest technology is needed to save the world from dangerous climate change, according to a poll of leading scientists carried out by The Independent. The collective international failure to curb the growing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has meant that an alternative to merely curbing emissions may become necessary.
The plan would involve highly controversial proposals to lower global temperatures artificially through daringly ambitious schemes that either reduce sunlight levels by man-made means or take CO2 out of the air. This "geoengineering" approach – including schemes such as fertilising the oceans with iron to stimulate algal blooms – would have been dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but is now being seen by the majority of scientists we surveyed as a viable emergency backup plan that could save the planet from the worst effects of climate change, at least until deep cuts are made in CO2 emissions.
Professor James Lovelock, a geo-scientist and author of the Gaia hypothesis, in which the Earth is a quasi-living organism, is one of those who is less optimistic. He believes that a plan B is urgently needed. "I never thought that the Kyoto agreement would lead to any useful cut back in greenhouse gas emissions so I am neither more nor less optimistic now about prospect of curbing CO2 compared to 10 years ago. I am, however, less optimistic now about the ability of the Earth's climate system to cope with expected increases in atmospheric carbon levels compared with 10 years ago," he told The Independent. "I strongly agree that we now need a 'plan B' where a geoengineering strategy is drawn up in parallel with other measures to curb CO2 emissions."
The possible methods of saving the planet include the following.
1. Injecting the air with particles to reflect sunlight
2. Creating low clouds over the oceans
3. Fertilising the sea with iron filings
4. Mixing the deep water of the ocean
5. Giant mirrors in space
Thursday, 1 January 2009
Yellowstone Park shaken by hundreds of earthquakes
The Telegraph newspaper, on the 31st of December 2008, reports on the increase of earthquakes around Yellowstone which may point to a possible eruption.
Scientists are monitoring a cluster of earthquakes that have rattled Yellowstone National Park over the past few days amid concerns that a larger earthquake could be brewing.
While earthquakes are common in the giant park, which covers parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana and experiences about 1,000 to 2,000 tremors a year, the intense burst of seismic activity lasting several days has been described as unusual.
"They're certainly not normal," said Robert Smith, a professor of geophysics at the University of Utah. "We haven't had earthquakes of this energy or extent in many years."
"This is an active volcanic and tectonic area, and these are the kinds of things we have to pay attention to," he said. "We might be seeing something precursory.
"Could it develop into a bigger fault or something related to hydrothermal activity? We don't know. That's what we're there to do, to monitor it for public safety."
Yellowstone is situated on a giant, geologically active feature known as a supervolcano and boasts some 75 per cent of the world's geysers. Much of the park sits in a caldera, or crater, which was formed when the massive volcano erupted 70,000 years ago.
Scientists are monitoring a cluster of earthquakes that have rattled Yellowstone National Park over the past few days amid concerns that a larger earthquake could be brewing.
While earthquakes are common in the giant park, which covers parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana and experiences about 1,000 to 2,000 tremors a year, the intense burst of seismic activity lasting several days has been described as unusual.
"They're certainly not normal," said Robert Smith, a professor of geophysics at the University of Utah. "We haven't had earthquakes of this energy or extent in many years."
"This is an active volcanic and tectonic area, and these are the kinds of things we have to pay attention to," he said. "We might be seeing something precursory.
"Could it develop into a bigger fault or something related to hydrothermal activity? We don't know. That's what we're there to do, to monitor it for public safety."
Yellowstone is situated on a giant, geologically active feature known as a supervolcano and boasts some 75 per cent of the world's geysers. Much of the park sits in a caldera, or crater, which was formed when the massive volcano erupted 70,000 years ago.
Biohackers attempt to unstitch the fabric of life
The Times newspaper, on the 27th of December 2008, has an article about the new hobby of engineering DNA called “biohacking”.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that thousands of Americans now spend their free time consulting the internet, jerry-rigging laboratory equipment, and tinkering with the very foundations of life on Earth as we know it.
While acknowledging the potential risk of unleashing a genetically altered Frankenstein's monster on the public, biohackers argue that it was DIYers who brought about America's other great technological revolution: that of the personal computer.
The group's co-founder, Mackenzie Cowell, 24, who studied biology at university, predicts that some biohackers are likely to make breakthroughs in everything from vaccines to super-efficient fuels. Others will simply fool around, he says: for example, using squid genes to make tattoos glow in the dark.
Alas, not everyone agrees. Jim Thomas, of ETC Group, a biotechnology watchdog group, says that synthetic organisms could ultimately escape and cause outbreaks of incurable diseases or unpredictable environmental damage. “Once you move to people working in their garage or other informal locations, there's no safety processes in place,” he says, adding that terrorists could be inspired by amateur genetic tinkering to launch a devastating bioattack on America.
Mrs Patterson shrugs at such arguments, however. “A terrorist doesn't need to go to the DIYbio community,” she says. “They can just enrol in their local college.”
Anecdotal evidence suggests that thousands of Americans now spend their free time consulting the internet, jerry-rigging laboratory equipment, and tinkering with the very foundations of life on Earth as we know it.
While acknowledging the potential risk of unleashing a genetically altered Frankenstein's monster on the public, biohackers argue that it was DIYers who brought about America's other great technological revolution: that of the personal computer.
The group's co-founder, Mackenzie Cowell, 24, who studied biology at university, predicts that some biohackers are likely to make breakthroughs in everything from vaccines to super-efficient fuels. Others will simply fool around, he says: for example, using squid genes to make tattoos glow in the dark.
Alas, not everyone agrees. Jim Thomas, of ETC Group, a biotechnology watchdog group, says that synthetic organisms could ultimately escape and cause outbreaks of incurable diseases or unpredictable environmental damage. “Once you move to people working in their garage or other informal locations, there's no safety processes in place,” he says, adding that terrorists could be inspired by amateur genetic tinkering to launch a devastating bioattack on America.
Mrs Patterson shrugs at such arguments, however. “A terrorist doesn't need to go to the DIYbio community,” she says. “They can just enrol in their local college.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)