Frost Byte, Volume 5, Issue 4

Posted on January 29, 2008 by rgbrocs

Last week Allaina attended the AMS/ASLI annual conference in New Orleans. As you might imagine, much of the AMS talk was about hurricanes. The ASLI conference was not so focused on the weather but more about the data about the weather and the role of libraries and data centers in managing and disseminating the data. The usual suspects were in attendance, librarians and data managers from Alaska, UCAR, NOAA, NASA, and other government associations and universities.

The Wednesday keynote address was “Divine Wind: the History and Science of Hurricanes” by Kerry Emmanuel. It was standing room only for his talk, which focused on historical aspects of hurricanes and also a bit of data collection. On Thursday, Allaina was part of a six person panel discussion titled “Discovery, Access, Preservation: Libraries’ Roles in Data Services.” It may have been more appropriate for a USO representative to have been a speaker, but given the 7 minute speaking time, there wasn’t much time to say all that we do at NSIDC.

In the Exhibit Hall, Allaina and Florence met Dr. Richard Crouthamel retired from NOAA and now executive director of the non-profit International Environmental Data Rescue Organization (IEDRO). He was wearing a t-shirt made by his granddaughter that said “Eat. Sleep. Rescue data.” Unfortunately, he didn’t have any for sale. IEDRO’s mission is to assist the scientific and educational communities by: locating and rescuing weather and other environmental data stored on perishable media; digitizing historical environmental data; ensuring the digitized data is available for operational and research applications to its host country as well as the international community of scientists.

Richard (Armstrong) and Allaina have been in contact with Dr. Crouthamel regarding a collection of about 1,000 historic glacier photographs. The collection of glass plates is currently stored at The Regional Museum in Maggiorino Borgatello, Puntas Arenas, Chile. He is attempting to negotiate the transfer of these images to NSIDC.

There are a couple of BAMS meeting issues, as well as IEDRO newsletters, in the library for anyone who might be interested.

Source

http://rgbrocs.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/frost-byte-volume-5-issue-4/

September 2010
By Dot McKenzie

IEDRO is dedicated to saving environmental data for the planet and it depends on volunteers to be successful.  Another organization in the Galapagos, the New Era Galapagos Foundation, also depends on volunteers for its success.  It has welcomed volunteers from all over the globe, and their work has been as varied as the individuals themselves. Doctors, nurses, dentists, nutritionists, and other healthcare professionals have worked in local hospitals and clinics. Visiting teachers have led classes at local elementary and high schools, and conducted pedagogical seminars for Galapagos teachers. It has found placements for eco-architects and yoga teachers, muralists and university professors. It has facilitated collaborations between world-class artists and Galapagos students on elaborate art projects, and has sponsored a host of public lectures on matters of cultural and scientific significance.

It welcomes any volunteer or group whose proposal is compatible with its mission statement and goals, and takes a very personalized approach to learning about its volunteers’ skills, talents and interests, to connect them with the local communities and individuals who need their service most. It is grateful for its volunteers’ generosity, ingenuity and dedication, and strives to make their experiences in the Galapagos as enjoyable and enriching as possible.

It is different from many other organizations that arrange volunteer placements in the Islands, because its office is located onsite in the Galapagos – not on the Ecuadorean mainland or elsewhere around the world.  Its staff is knowledgeable about the area, and is available to answer your questions and help you adjust to your environment throughout the entirety of your volunteer service.  All volunteers receive  an onsite orientation, covering  information about the local flora and fauna, statistics on health and education, and local customs and culture.

Everyone knows about the animals living on these islands, but forget about the people living on them.  If you want to have an interesting holiday on one of the most exciting islands in the world, think about volunteering here.  More information may be found in http://neweragalapagos.blogspot.com.  People of all ages are welcome to apply and bring their skills and knowledge to a beautiful island in the Pacific.

The Story of Stuff: A Review

April 2010
by Carmen Lee

Are you a student? A young person? A schoolteacher?

Have you bought anything in the past month?  Any electronic gadget, clothes, knickknack, “consumer product”?

And have you thrown out any “old stuff” in the past month?

Have you ever wondered, “Where does all the stuff we buy come from, and where does it go when we throw it out?”

If you have – and even if you haven’t – watch the 20-minute animated film Story of Stuff on the Internet.

Why?

It is like nothing you have watched before. It is fun and engaging.  It has been watched by over six million students and teachers around the country in the past couple of years.  Hundreds of teachers have assigned it as homework.  (Don’t you want to find out why this video is so-o-o popular?)

It brings to life big words like “consumerism.” “global corporations,” “materials economy,” “environmental degradation,” “sustainability” – words and concepts that many of us dismiss and tune out because we think they have nothing to do with us.  But we must try to understand these terms and their true meaning.  The reason is simple: We are already up to our neck in this pickling pot labeled “Consumer Culture” (though we may not realize it). We are already functioning as pieces in this giant jigzaw puzzle called “Materials Economy.”

Will this short film alter the way you look at the stuff you buy, consume, and throw away?  Perhaps a little.  Perhaps a lot.  Perhaps not at all.

But watch it, won’t you?

You will enjoy it. And you are in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8

Clamshells may provide the most fascinating detailed record

July 2010
By Virginie NOEL

Paleo data come from natural sources, such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, as well as, ocean and lake sediments. These data extend the archive of weather and climate back hundreds to millions of years.

Most measures of palaeoclimate provide data on average annual temperatures; however, changes in seasonality have more meaning than annual temperature. A recent study, using shells, was able to reconstruct temperatures on a sub-weekly resolution. The scientists were able to determine changes in average annual temperatures and even how these changes affected specific summers and winters.

Scientists used a robotic sampling device to shave thin slices from each layer of a shell’s growth bands. These were fed into a mass spectrometer, which measured the isotopes in each layer. From this, they could calculate the conditions under which each layer was formed. Colder the water is associated with greater amounts of heavy oxygen isotopes.

Another study to verify assertions in historical Icelandic sagas describing the weather reveal a number of climate changes recorded by historians, but also according to shells. This new technique will help climate modelers to improve their understanding of seasonal effects in the North Atlantic. The process may has the potential for revealing past processes in unprecedented detail.

The study will be able to study to the end of the last ice age!

Reference

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100308/full/news.2010.110.html?s=news_rss

November 2009
By Gerald Hawkins

The raging waters of Mother Nature can render our world helpless, leaving homes destroyed, families ruptured, and the environment damaged. A flood can ruin an entire region in a matter of minutes.

China, Istanbul, and the Philippines have recently lost huge numbers of lives to flooding. How could historical weather data make a difference? By collecting regional data in areas of the world in which weather data has been collected but not retrieved and entered into weather databases, complex weather forecasting models can predict and enable authorities to adequately warn residents.

In September, tropical storm Ketsana lashed out on the Philippines. Tatalon in Quezon City, Manila was affected the greatest by the floodwaters which reached over four feet high. Many people were stranded on roof tops. Almost 2 million people were affected by the flood, and more than 100,000 were removed from their homes. Recently, the death toll rose to 240 people; 240 deaths that could have been prevented if there had been adequate weather forecasting. (Photo: Addictedtoblack.wordpress.com)

By contrast, in mid-September, between 15-20 inches of rain poured down over the southeastern United States affecting Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. Despite the fact that the flooding was much worse and spanned over a larger geographic area, only 9 lives were lost to this storm.

The stark difference in lives lost during these two floods can be credited to forecasting. Forecasting that is built on years and years of historic data.

References:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/09/flooding_in_the_southeast.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/world/asia/29philip.htm

FAR GREATER WORRIES

A Review of Woo Yun’s Article: “The Implications of Global Dimming and Global Warming”

February 2010
By Toni Rosati

While the author, Woo Yun, is correct in stating that global dimming may directly relate to the effects of global warming, the article does not address far more serious concerns that stem from the causes of global dimming. Global dimming is a term used to describe the lessening of the solar energy that reaches the Earth’s surface. Currently, this is happening because of increases in air pollution, everything from aerosols, particulates, sulfates, and even international dust. Clouds must have these tiny objects to condense around in order to form. Since there are more of these molecules in the atmosphere, more clouds are forming and increasing the albedo, or reflectiveness, of the Earth, thus not allowing the warming process to occur as fast as it would if there were less air pollution.

At first glance, this seems like a climate mitigator’s geoengineering dream, but it is actually a health nightmare. It has been proven that people who live in areas with higher parts per million of these aerosols and particulates suffer from increased rates of asthma, lung cancer, and lots of other diseases. The circulation of the Earth’s decreased lung function, lung cancer, chronic and acute bronchitis, as well as heart problems such as heart disease, heart attacks, and arrhythmias. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared that “tens of thousands of people die each year from breathing tiny particles in the environment.” The circulation of the Earth’s atmosphere increases the risk of downwind populations to these same health factors even though they did not produce the chemicals themselves.

Upon further investigation of the albedo geoengineering myth, we see that the clouds that are being formed because of the increase in aerosols are doing even further damage to the world’s population by changing the precipitation patterns. Clouds must have particles, called condensation nuclei, in order to form. With the increase in particulates in the atmosphere, there are more molecules for clouds to condense around. But the available condensation nuclei are increasing much faster than the water vapor in the atmosphere. This means that the current amount of water vapor is being spread amongst many more condensation nuclei producing clouds that are less likely to create rain. The author mistakenly sees this phenomenon as a positive overall effect by arguing that “this results in heavier, more opaque, and longer-lasting clouds which block more sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface.” On the contrary, it is producing higher altitude, thin, wispy cirrus clouds.

The fact is that changes in rain patterns lead to drought which will harm populations much faster than the slower threat of global warming. NASA satellite measurements have been used to research this phenomenon. They have found that when the clouds are measured over a year’s time, the same overall measurement of cloud coverage has been reached, but when smaller time spans are looked at, say one month, it becomes clear that the type of clouds being formed have dramatically changed over the last few decades. Instead of thick, precipitable clouds, high, thin cirrus clouds are in greater abundance. Cirrus clouds do not produce needed precipitation and their higher occurrence takes away water vapor from the potential formation of rain clouds.

Like the cloud measurement, over a year’s time it seems that areas are getting the same precipitation. But at a smaller time span, it is clear that there are times of downpour and times of dryness. Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Climate Analysis Section (NCAR-CAS), has recently researched this phenomenon and found a correlation between climate change and more extreme precipitation patterns. This is extremely detrimental to human safety because the downpours will cause flooding, mud slides, and limit the available groundwater supplies because of quick saturation and runoff.

The author points out that “other byproducts [produced from burning coal, oil, and wood] include soot, ash, and sulfur compounds (to) make up aerosols.” These are the same chemicals that produce acid rain! In the 1980’s, governments went on a crusade to reduce the occurrence of acid rain because it was so detrimental. Acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage. It is entirely possible that with increases in black coal aerosols from the burning of fossil fuels or from climate geoengineering, acid rain problems could return.

Woo Yun makes the argument that “we cannot ignore the effect of global dimming because we may have been observing an entirely hotter climate today without it.” While I agree with this statement, I wholeheartedly disagree with the conclusions made because of it. The author says “it is important for us to consider all avenues for avoiding [global warming]” and suggests that we consider the “use of global dimming to mitigate the effects of global warming.” The encouragement of geoengineering climate with chemicals we already know to cause destructive health effects and dangerous weather alterations is short-sighted. It shows a misunderstanding of the intricacies of our climate problems and it highlights how science can be twisted to manipulate an information-hungry population.

References:

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/

http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=particle_health.page1#3

http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/cloudtypes.html

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html

Teaser:

Most of us are not aware in a global way how quickly mankind is depleting our non-renewable energy resources and consuming creatures in the oceans faster than they can reproduce. We have little awareness of how our food is grown.

A Review: HOME

By Virginie Noel

Most of us are not aware in a global way how quickly mankind is depleting our non-renewable energy resources and consuming creatures in the oceans faster than they can reproduce. We have little awareness of how our food is grown. Yet, all of these affect our daily quality of life. “Home,” a UTube video, shows us ecologically what is going on round the world—in developing countries as well as industrial nations. The viewer sees firsthand the extent to which we collectively have been destroying our environment; giving fewer chances for the next generation to cope with severally reduced resources and climate changes that are sure to come.

This video makes the viewer aware about the clock is ticking. The program calls on all of us to help our planet NOW!

“Home” starts by showing our current treatment of the planet and all its resources; then shows the solutions we need to take to save our planet including making personal lifestyle changes and ways to work towards making sustainable eco-friendly development in order for all to prosper. It provides a message of hope for what has already been done to reduce our carbon footprint.

The program is available in many languages: English, French, Russian, Arabic, Spanish, and German.

It’s a must-see for all ages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

What Is Good Science?

June 2010
By Carmen Lee and Gary Reidister

In response to the question of “what is good science,”

Carmen Lee, a PhD in library and information studies from the University of London answered:

I find the question “What is good science?” to be very interesting, but not because it sounds like an intelligent question inquisitive minds would ask. It is interesting to me because it is exactly the kind of question asked by climate skeptics and doubters to deflect attention from serious discussions on the topic of climate change/global warming itself. This question has acquired a subtext, with a tinge of cynicism mixed with challenge. It is almost a “trap.” If we fall into it, we waste a lot of time and energy arguing about “Is global warming ‘good’ science?”—which of course it is—rather than on positive measures to combat global warming. Our target should be climate change and its effects on the planet, not spurious arguments and straw men that savvy climate change opponents keep trotting out.

Imagine someone who denies that smoking tobacco products causes cancer no matter how much evidence and how many studies are shown to him. If he persists in saying “The issue of harm to our health caused by smoking tobacco is bogus because it is bad science, because it is not proven beyond any doubt,” people will simply ignore him.

People don’t put on hold health and smoke cessation campaigns just because a tiny minority whips out a “good/bad science” ploy. People don’t spend time arguing whether the research is 100% or 90% conclusive. Why not?  Because the crux of the matter lies not in whether smoking leads to cancer is “good” or “bad” science. The issue of climate change is no different.

At the end of the day, for the vast majority of us, it is not all that important to have a perfect understanding of what is good science. What IS hugely important is understanding and finding good SOURCES OF INFORMATION WE CAN TRUST, sources for government policies, science, health and medicine, economic development, social issues, etc. We can’t read all the scientific, economic, political documents ourselves. We can’t be learned in all fields of knowledge. But we CAN stay informed and we CAN be concerned and caring citizens through thoughtful, judicious engagement with sources we come to trust and respect. (And according to all the sources that I find trustworthy, climate change is real and studies on the subject are “good science.”)

There are all sorts of other reasons for the public’s “trust deficit” when it comes to environment science. For example, poor science literacy in the general population, is coupled with the lack of leadership in the science community that will speak with one forceful, authoritative voice when it comes to climate science.

Gary Reidister’s Response

Carmen’s response on the good science question is very interesting. Here’s how I see it.

A poll released 1/27/10 by George Mason University and Yale University: Only 50 percent of Americans now say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” about global warming, a 13-point decrease. [50% are not concerned!]

The percentage of Americans who think global warming is occurring has declined 14 points, to 57 percent. [43% think global warming is not occurring!]

The Rasmussen poll:

52 percent of Americans said there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.

59 percent also said it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming.

43 percent say we should wait a few years to see if global warming is real before making major changes.

Global warming is a political issue. People are looking for reasons to dismiss the notion to reassure themselves. Pinheads get their propaganda out through the media to call global warming science into question. Consequently, climate scientists must explain why their research is good science.

Regarding Lee’s argument about tobacco the cancer/smoking link was denied in the 1940s and 50s. The tobacco industry through their propaganda arm the Tobacco Industry Research Committee denied the smoking/lung cancer link in ads in major newspapers across the country: “[T]he products we make are not injurious to health…. At one time or another during [the 300 years of tobacco use] critics have held it responsible for practically every disease of the human body. One by one these charges have been abandoned for lack of evidence.” “Tobacco Industry Research Committee formed to Study Smoking’s Link to Cancer,” Associated Press, Jan. 5, 1954.

Regarding the public’s “trust deficit” when it comes to environment science, such as poor science literacy, because the average person lacks science literacy he needs to know what good science is as it relates to global warming. Seems to me climate scientists and concerned citizens are waging a campaign, similar to a campaign for political office—for action on global warming and so, as in a campaign, they have to refute the deniers’ propaganda that global warming is based on bad science. Scientists saying ‘global warming is good science because we say so’ would not refute the bad science charge and so would give it credence.

Opinion by Penny Paugh

I’ve done a lot of internet surfing on the subject of global warming. Of those who refute global warming, I only found one that even discussed any research; and, in that instance, the research that was refuted was not actually cited so the reader could not go look at the reference. Ninety-nine percent of rebuttals to global warming are just opinions. If anything, the camp that refutes global warming does so without any science at all.

What I find alarming, in general, that if politicians deny something enough, the public comes to believe them and they just ignore actual facts or if the facts conflict with their opinions, they deny the authenticity of them.

The gullibility of the American public alarms me.

The Effects of Warming of the Oceans

May 2010
By Kevin Tsai

The effects of climate change, such as melting ice caps and increasing tropical hurricane intensity, may seem remote to many people. On the other hand, decades of increasing ocean temperatures, which reached new record average highs in June 2009, will likely drive changes to marine life that no one will be able to ignore.

Phytoplankton, microscopic plants that live on the surface on oceans and other bodies of water, make up the foundation of the marine food web and process over 100 million tons of carbon dioxide a day. They flourish when ocean currents mix nutrient-rich cold water from below with warmer water on the surface. Unfortunately, rising surface water temperatures are reducing the amount of mixing that occurs in tropical and sub-tropical oceans, decreasing phytoplankton production in the affected waters by 30% or more. [1]

An experiment conducted between researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill suggests that ocean warming could have severe consequences for all kinds of marine life. By exposing miniaturized ocean ecosystems to warm temperatures, researchers found that while warmer temperatures initially increased phytoplankton growth, bacteria and zooplankton, microscopic animals that eat phytoplankton, spent more time feeding on phytoplankton, reducing phytoplankton numbers. As the foundation of the marine food web, a decrease in real world phytoplankton populations could cause quakes in marine food chains worldwide, such as depleting fish stocks in some regions while increasing in others. [2]

As the oceans continue to warm, the lives of people who live in coastal nations are certain to see changes in the marine life they rely on for food and export, if they have not already. While it is impossible to know exactly how climate change will affect biological life on earth, a better understanding of climate data may help us better predict and prepare for the future. Learn more about IEDRO’s data rescue efforts at http://www.iedro.org.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/dec/07/frontpagenews.conservationandendangeredspecies

[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-will-warmer-oceans-affect-sea-life

Greenhouse Gases and the Causes of Global Warming

By Anita Dotson

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?

This is a common misconception in the debate over greenhouse gases and the causes of global warming. Both water vapor and carbon dioxide are important greenhouse gases that play a crucial role in atmospheric warming. A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth’s atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures. Which gas then is to blame for global warming and should be controlled?

Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. It would seem then that water vapor should be climatologists’ primary focus. However, water vapor cannot be controlled by human intervention; it is simply a product of its environment.

The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is dependent on temperature. Under normal conditions, most of the heat emitted from Earth’s surface in the form of long wave radiation goes into the atmosphere and out into space.  However, the presence of increased greenhouse gases traps more long-wave radiation, which means there is more energy in the atmosphere to warm the Earth’s surface.

As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop.

Scientists then need to focus on what is causing air temperatures to rise in the first place. Heat from other greenhouse gases is causing atmospheric warming, leading to an increase in water evaporation and compounding the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic, or human-derived, CO2 serves as the primary source of warming with water vapor playing a secondary role. While CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere, human interference has interrupted the carbon cycle through activities, such as burning forests, mining, and burning coal. These activities artificially release more carbon from their solid storage to its gaseous state in the lower atmosphere. The rapid increase in CO2 volume has exceeded the amount oceans and vegetation are able to re-absorb. Furthermore, as deforestation continues around the world, there is less vegetation every year available to sequester the carbon. Thus, excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere where it traps heat and stimulates water evaporation.

Since the late 1700s, natural and man-made gases have been rising due to the birth of the industrial revolution. Prior to this time, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were steady at 280ppm (parts per million). Today they have increased by over 30% to 370ppm. Although it was calculated in the late 19^th century to take a few millennia before temperature increases would be observed, human activities and CO2 emissions did not hold steady. A surge in atmospheric CO2 concentrations came in the 1960s due to car exhaust, industrial emissions, fuel production, and deforestation. Carbon dioxide was the first of the greenhouse gases to show a rise in atmospheric concentration from these activities. Ocean absorption began to lag behind as CO2 was being produced much too rapidly. Saturation and consequential warming over the oceans has been demonstrated by the fact that the total water vapor content over the oceans has risen 0.41kg/sq meter every 10 years since 1988.

While water vapor may be the most dominant greenhouse gas by mass and volume, it certainly is not the primary culprit responsible for global warming. Rather it is part of an amplifying effect. As other greenhouse gases such as CO2, warm the atmosphere, the air is able to hold more water vapor. The water vapor traps more heat and further warms the atmosphere. Human activities have increased CO2 output, and responsible human activities can reduce its production. Unlike water vapor that returns to Earth as precipitation within one week of entering the atmosphere, CO2 stays in the atmosphere between 50-200 years. Therefore, the best way to control global warming is to reduce CO2 emissions.

Appel, Arianne (2005, November 10). Global Warming Supercharged by Water Vapor? National Geographic News. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/48158147.html

Koerner, Brendan I. (2008, January 22). Is Global Warming Caused by Water Vapor? Slate. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2008, August 20). Greenhouse Gases. NOAA Satellite and Information Service.  Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

Weart, Spencer (2009, June). The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect. The Discovery of Global Warming. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm