hcubed's WunderBlog

Hansen - full-time activist and part-time scientist, arrested again.

By: hcubed, 3:53 AM GMT on November 16, 2010

http://ran.org/content/more-100-arrested-white-house-demanding-end-mountaintop-removal

WASHINGTON, D.C.—More than 100 people were arrested today during Appalachia Rising, the largest national protest to end mountaintop removal (MTR) coal mining. Arrests included Appalachian residents; retired coal miners; renowned climate scientist, James Hansen; and faith leaders. After a march from Freedom Plaza and a rally at Lafayette Park, more than 100 stage a sit-in in front of the White House to demand President Obama follow his own science and end mountaintop mining. The likely charge is obstruction.

In addition to the non-violent civil disobedience at the White House, four people were arrested during a sit-in at PNC bank for protesting the bank’s role as the lead U.S. financier of MTR.

“The science is clear, mountaintop removal destroys historic mountain ranges, poisons water supplies and pollutes the air with coal and rock dust,” said renowned climate scientist James Hansen, who was arrested in today’s protest at the White House. “Mountaintop removal, providing only a small fraction of our energy, can and should be abolished. The time for half measures and caving in to polluting industries must end.”

Wow. A NASA scientist arrested for protesting at the White House.

Again, a government-paid scientist is protesting the policies of HIS BOSS, the President of the US.

...and still has a job...

Updated: 3:56 AM GMT on November 16, 2010

Permalink

AGW proponents and The List, part 8

By: hcubed, 6:14 AM GMT on November 07, 2010

Other AGW proponents have their own items on the list, such as: The C12/C13 ratios.

For those not sure about what this is, or how it ties in to anthropogenic GW, let’s review.

"...One of the “signatures” of anthropogenic CO2 is the carbon isotope ratio, C13/C12. The “natural” C13 content of CO2 is just over 1.1%. In contrast, the C13 content of the CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels is claimed to be slightly smaller – just under 1.1%..."

So they say that you can track the amount of anthropogenic CO2 by observing the difference of natural vs. fossil fuel CO2 (the C13/C12 ratio).

The concentration of C13 isn’t reported directly, it is given as “dC13″, which is computed as:

“dC13 = 1000* {([C13/C12]sample / [C13/C12]std ) – 1

One interesting thing about ratios: changes in either value can change the result. As we burn fossil fuels, the ratio of C13 to C12 is going down. So you could tie this decrease to anthropogenic emissions. But if you examine the above equation, you will see that the dC13 result that is reported can go down not only from decreasing C13 content, but also from an increasing C12 content (the other 98.9% of the CO2).

So are scientists looking at things that can increase C12?

Some are:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co 2/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/

Permalink

AGW proponents and The List, part 7

By: hcubed, 1:51 AM GMT on November 06, 2010

9. Unprecedented coral bleaching.

It seems that whenever you want to talk about the climate being effected, you must add the word “unprecedented”.

And, as usual, research is a wonderful thing.

Wikipedia (again):

"...Coral bleaching is the whitening of corals, due to stress-induced expulsion or death of their symbiotic protozoa, zooxanthellae, or due to the loss of pigmentation within the protozoa. The corals that form the structure of the great reef ecosystems of tropical seas depend upon a symbiotic relationship with unicellular flagellate protozoa, called zooxanthellae, that are photosynthetic and live within their tissues. Zooxanthellae give coral its coloration, with the specific color depending on the particular clade. Under stress, corals may expel their zooxanthellae, which leads to a lighter or completely white appearance, hence the term "bleached"..."

They’re saying that the natural color of the coral itself is white, it’s the color of the creatures living in the coral that gives coral its color.

Causes of “bleaching”?

• Increase/decrease in water temperatures

• Increase/decrease in solar irradiance (light levels)

• Changes in water chemistry (pH levels)

• Starvation caused by a decline in zooplankton

• Increased sedimentation (due to silt runoff)

• Pathogen infections

• Changes in salinity

• Wind

• Low tide air exposure

• Cyanide fishing

• The effects of el Niño and la Niña events

• Changes in ocean currents, which relates to changes in phytoplankton and zooplankton populations, as well the amount of other nutrients present in the water

• Increase/decrease in air temperatures

• Build up of carbon dioxide and methane gases

• Increased or high water turbulence

• Pollution, which is not limited to the depositing of sediment from soil erosion, chemicals such as nitrite, nitrate, ammonia, phosphate, as well as other detrimental contaminants into the sea via river run-off and drain pipes (or even ship discharge)

Pretty long list, isn’t it?

Remember, there was a previous post about sea levels that mentioned strands of coral that were found 6m above the current sea levels.

Bet they’re bleached, too...

Updated: 1:51 AM GMT on November 06, 2010

Permalink

AGW proponents and The List, part 6

By: hcubed, 1:36 AM GMT on November 02, 2010

8. Ocean acidification.

One of the problems about research is the source you use.

For example, try Wikipedia.

"...Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere..."

An automatic assumption of an anthropogenic source.

But from other sources, we can see something else.

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm

Scientists that simply mention CO2 levels without mentioning the source.

Remember, "anthropogenic carbon dioxide" is another name for "burning of fossil fuels" (the C12/C13 ratio).

So, let’s move this along.

"...Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104, a change of −0.075 on the logarithmic pH scale which corresponds to an increase of 18.9% in H+ (acid) concentration. By the first decade of the 21st century however, the net change in ocean pH levels relative pre-industrial level was about -0.11, representing an increase of some 30% in "acidity" (ion concentration) in the world's oceans..." Wiki again.

So let’s examine the pH scale.

From: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/184ph.html

"...Acidic and basic (alkaline) are two extremes that describe a chemical property. Mixing acids and bases can cancel out or neutralize their extreme effects. A substance that is neither acidic nor basic is neutral.

The pH scale measures how acidic or basic a substance is. The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14. A pH of 7 is neutral. A pH less than 7 is acidic. A pH greater than 7 is basic.

The pH scale is logarithmic and as a result, each whole pH value below 7 is ten times more acidic than the next higher value. For example, pH 4 is ten times more acidic than pH 5 and 100 times (10 times 10) more acidic than pH 6. The same holds true for pH values above 7, each of which is ten times more alkaline (another way to say basic) than the next lower whole value. For example, pH 10 is ten times more alkaline than pH 9 and 100 times (10 times 10) more alkaline than pH 8.

Pure water is neutral. But when chemicals are mixed with water, the mixture can become either acidic or basic. Examples of acidic substances are vinegar and lemon juice. Lye, milk of magnesia, and ammonia are examples of basic substances..."

So pure water has a pH of 7. Sea water has a pH level of 8.104. According to the above source, then, sea water is more basic than pure water.

So, using their own statement: "...Note that, although the ocean is acidifying, its pH is still greater than 7 (that of neutral water), so the ocean could also be described as becoming less basic..."

Using the figures from wiki, since the industrial revolution began, it is estimated that surface ocean pH has dropped by slightly more than 0.1 units. In the next 90 years, it’s predicted to drop another 0.245 units.

But will still be less acid than rainwater.

Edit: While I was working on this, the following post appeared:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/01/scientists-plead-for-15-billion-ocean-acidification-monitorin g-system/

15 BILLION DOLLARS. I bought a set of test strips for my pool for about 10 bucks.

Updated: 12:31 PM GMT on November 02, 2010

Permalink

About hcubed

Living in Biloxi MS, have been here since '85 (first Hurricane was Elena).

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
86 °F
Scattered Clouds