Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Climate Change Spreads Disease Worldwide

Climate change is affecting the spread of infectious diseases worldwide - posing serious threats to not only humans, but also animals and plants, a team of international disease ecologists write in the journal Science.

Public health officials should change the way they model disease systems of all kinds to include climate variables, researchers argue. Taking climate into account could help more accurately predict and prevent the spread of deadly disease.

The changing climate is already massively affecting plants and animals, researchers write in the study. The muskox, pictured above, is one arctic animal that's already seeing higher mortality rates because of one climate change-spread infectious disease, researchers said. Biodiversity loss has even been linked to greater risks from certain infectious diseases, such as Lyme disease and the West Nile Virus, according to researchers.

Additionally, certain human diseases, such as dengue, malaria and cholera, thrive in warmer temperatures, threatening much of the developing world. The warming globe's impact on agricultural systems and game species pose a particular concern for the indigenous people of the Arctic, among other groups in rapidly changing areas.

The next step, researchers say, is taking action.

"We need to transcend simple arguments about which is more important - climate change or socioeconomics - and ask just how much harder will it be to control diseases as the climate warms?" coauthor Richard Ostfeld of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies said in a statement. "Will it be possible at all in developing countries?"

more at Weather.com

Study: Watching Fox News Makes You Distrust Climate Scientists

The study, conducted by Jay Hmielowski of the University of Arizona and colleagues at several other universities, relied on a large polling sample of Americans in two phases: 2,497 individuals were interviewed in 2008, and then a smaller sample of 1,036 were reinterviewed in 2011. The respondents were asked about what kind of media they consumed—conservative choices included Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Show; "non-conservative" media outlets included CNN, MSNBC, National Public Radio, and network news—as well as about how much they trusted or distrusted climate scientists. They were also asked about their belief that global warming is happening. (The study controlled for variables like political ideology, religiosity, and other demographic factors.)

The results showed that conservative media consumption led to less trust in climate scientists, even as consuming nonconservative media had the opposite effect (leading to an increased trust in climate scientists). Between people who said they don't consume any conservative media and people who said they consume a large amount, "we see a 13 percent difference in the amount of trust in scientists," according to study coauthor Lauren Feldman of American University.

The authors then proposed that distrust of scientists is a key link in the chain between watching Fox (or listening to Rush) and coming to doubt climate science. The idea is that because most people don't know a great deal about the science of global warming, they rely on "heuristics"—or mental shortcuts—to make up their minds about what to believe. "Trust" (or the lack thereof) is a classic shortcut, allowing one to quickly determine who's right and who's wrong in a seemingly complex and data-laden debate. Or as the paper put it: "The public's low level of knowledge and the media's conflicting, often value-laden messages about global warming lead people to use heuristics to make sense of this complex issue."

more at MotherJones.com

Trends in Atmospheric Carbon DioxideLink

Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
July 2013: 397.23 ppm
July 2012: 394.30 ppm

Quoting 549. Naga5000:
Using conservative sources of information for things like climate change makes people less likely to trust scientists. Link First link is for the salon.com article, second link is the actual paper, without pay wall! Hooray for science! Link

A well written and reasoned post in the comments section of the Salon article -

"Leslie

My experience of reading the posts to science stories on yahoo! (which is a broader sampling of the public at large) has left me utterly appalled and very concerned for the future of this country. The bottom line is that I believe we may be overtaken technologically by at least one nation in within the next generation. Right now we are getting by with the importation of of science minds through immigration and H1b visas. We can't count on that going on indefinitely, especially as we are not graduating enough pf our native born people in the sciences.

The article seemed to focus on the subject of global warming, but I feel the problem is far more fundamental than that. On any science thread (I especially focus on astronomy stories), I hear a vast amount of general science skepticism, with much of originating from religious believers. A lot of it also comes from angry sounding righties, many of whom have said science and science research is but a liberal boondoggle, meant to soak the govt. and waste their tax dollars. These people don't just question climate change, but question the conclusions of almost all astronomical science as well, declaring it all a false jumping to conclusions. They sound like uneducated laymen who never studied or learned much science in school, yet who feel they can declare all the research and knowledge in the field a sham.


The election of Obama has really unhinged these people, and it shows in their comments and posts. They hate and distrust all govt as long as he is the head of it, and that includes non support for any govt funding of scientific research, or of programs they once supported, like NASA. (Also sometimes called a liberal boondoggle by these folks.) One thing I often hear on numerous posts is the critique that Obama has "shut down" NASA, something they must keep hearing in their right wing media, because I have seen that view posted so many times. (Many also criticise the fact that Obama has cut the NASA budget, but it's no use pointing out to these people that those cutbacks were part of a deal with a GOP house that wanted cuts and only cuts to all govt spending. Otherwise they were going to shut down the govt.) Yet this same contingent also says NASA is a waste! There is no pleasing these people; they have become emotionally disturbed and unreasonable with the election of a black man to the Presidency. In their blind rage, they attack anybody and anything and that includes scientists, who they suspect of being in collusion with liberals and big government.


On the issue of climate change, they reject it because they fear and loathe the idea of having to make lifestyle changes, especially those that may affect their use of cars, as well as the possibility of increased costs that may come from such changes. They fear and resent the govt. passing environmental laws and feel that by doing so, the govt. is just being a liberal fascist nanny state.

These troubled voices are by no means a small minority on yahoo!; on some science threads such comments are often as much as 40% of the response. Their comments do get voted down by the readership, which helps to restore some faith in my fellow Americans. Still, the vast reservoir of bigotry and ignorance is disheartening, with much of it playing out on threads whose subject has no political connection. But that's all these people know. Any ignorant and uninformed person can spout politics, while science knowledge seems to be a scarce commodity among us.


I reiterate, I'm concerned for our future. As a society we haven't made the investment in education and boy does it show on those science threads! A collective mediocrity has taken hold of us, and will not assure us of continuing technological and economic primacy as the 21st century unfolds."

I too am aware of the uninformed and the misinforming people on Yahoo's "Question and Answer" section. OttawaMike is somewhat famous there simply because he asks what seems to be well reasoned questions. I see just another attempt at misdirection and misrepresentation of the information provided. What worries me the most is that many of Yahoo's users are the youth of this nation and what they are being fed as knowledge there.

Myth of Sustainability by Dr. McPherson

He's a wealth of knowledge on many key environmental topics, from global warming to peak oil, and he's an excellent instructor," said Darlene DeHudy, the MCC Meijer Library and Information Technology Center reference librarian organizing McPherson's talk in Collegiate Hall. The former professor of natural resources and environment at the University of Arizona will address "The Myth of Sustainability, the Importance of Durability, and a Method for Saving the Planet."

From the Guardian:

Seven facts you need to know about the Arctic methane timebomb

Posted by Nafeez Ahmed, Monday 5 August 2013

Dismissals of catastrophic methane danger ignore robust science in favour of outdated mythology of climate safety


Melting ice in the Arctic. Photograph: Getty

Debate over the plausibility of a catastrophic release of methane in coming decades due to thawing Arctic permafrost has escalated after a new Nature paper warned that exactly this scenario could trigger costs equivalent to the annual GDP of the global economy.

Scientists of different persuasions remain fundamentally divided over whether such a scenario is even plausible. Carolyn Rupple of the US Geological Survey (USGS) Gas Hydrates Project told NBC News the scenario is "nearly impossible." Ed Dlugokencky, a research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) said there has been "no detectable change in Arctic methane emissions over the past two decades." NASA's Gavin Schmidt said that ice core records from previously warm Arctic periods show no indication of such a scenario having ever occurred. Methane hydrate expert Prof David Archer reiterated that "the mechanisms for release operate on time scales of centuries and longer." These arguments were finally distilled in a lengthy, seemingly compelling essay posted on Skeptical Science last Thursday, concluding with utter finality:

"There is no evidence that methane will run out of control and initiate any sudden, catastrophic effects."

But none of the scientists rejecting the plausibility of the scenario are experts in the Arctic, specifically the East Siberia Arctic Shelf (ESAS). In contrast, an emerging consensus among ESAS specialists based on continuing fieldwork is highlighting a real danger of unprecedented quantities of methane venting due to thawing permafrost.

So who's right? What are these Arctic specialists saying? Are their claims of a potentially catastrophic methane release plausible at all? I took a dive into the scientific literature to find out.

What I discovered was that Skeptical Science's unusually skewered analysis was extremely selective, and focused almost exclusively on the narrow arguments of scientists out of touch with cutting edge developments in the Arctic. Here's what you need to know.

Continue Reading >>

Noaa report says Arctic sea ice is disappearing at unprecedented pace
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration climate study puts 2012 among the 10 warmest years on record

The Arctic lost record amounts of sea ice last year and is changing at an unprecedented pace due to climate change, a landmark climate study said on Tuesday.

Last year was among the 10 warmest years on record – ranking eighth or ninth depending on the data set, according to a report led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa). The year 2012 also saw record greenhouse gas emissions, with concentrations of carbon dioxide and other warming gasses reaching a global average of 392.7 parts per million for the year.

"The findings are striking," Kathryn Sullivan, Noaa's acting administrator, said on a conference call. "Our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place."

The scientists were reluctant to point directly to the cause of the striking changes in the climate. But the annual reports are typically used by the federal government to prepare for the future, and in June president Barack Obama used his climate address to direct government agencies to begin planning for decades of warming atmosphere and rising seas.

The biggest changes in the climate in 2012 were in the Arctic and in Greenland, said the report, which is an annual exercise by a team of American and British scientists. The Arctic warmed at about twice the rate of lower latitudes, the report found. By June 2012, snow cover had fallen to its lowest levels since the record began. By September 2012, sea-ice cover had retreated to its lowest levels since the beginning of satellite records, falling to 1.32 million square miles.

That was, the report noted, a whopping 18% lower than the previous low, set in 2007, and a staggering 54% lower than the mark for 1980.

The changes were widespread on land as well, with record warm permafrost temperatures in Alaska and in the Canadian Arctic, the report's authors noted. On 11 July last year, Greenland experienced surface melting on 97% of the ice sheet. The record-breaking events indicate an era of "new normal" for the climate, the researchers said.

"The record or near-records being reported from year to year in the Arctic are no longer anomalies or exceptions," said Jackie Richter-Menge, a civil engineer with the US army corps of engineers. "Really they have become the rule for us, or the norm that we see in the Arctic and that we expect to see for the foreseeable future."

That ice melt was also a major cause of sea-level rise, the report found. Global sea levels rose to record highs last year, after being depressed during the first half of 2011 because of the effects of La Niña. The average global sea level last year was 1.4in above the 1993-2010 average.

"Over the past seven years of so, it appears that the ice melt is contributing more than twice as much to the global sea level rise compared with warming waters," said Jessica Blunden, a climatologist at Noaa's national climactic data centre.

Living with climate change in Greenland - in pictures

Joe Raedle joined Getty Images in 2000 and is based in Miami. His work has varied from outlandish festivities in the bayous of Louisiana, to the mountain peaks of Afghanistan and the deserts of Iraq.

Here, he covers the landscape again, capturing images of Greenlanders adapt to the changing climate as researchers from the National Science Foundation and other organisations study the melting glaciers and the long-term ramifications for the world.


Potato farmer Arnaq Egede stands on the front steps of her home in Qaqortoq. The farm, the largest in Greenland, has seen an extended growing season due to climate change
Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Today's selection of articles about science, climate change, energy and the environment.

Investors See Climate Change as Risk That Influences Decisions: Report

Coal at Risk as Global Lenders Drop Financing on Climate

TransCanada to Face Hurdles in Quest for Eastern Pipeline

Nature 'is better at carbon farming'

How Plants Avoid Sunburn: Findings Could Lead to Crops With Increased Protection from Bright Light and Enhanced Photosynthesis

Soil Carbon 'Blowing in the Wind'

New Challenges for Mercury Cleanup

Residents flee as fire rages at Marathon, near Athens

Fukushima's new 'emergency' – radioactive water leaks (+video)

Stars, Gold, Dung Beetles and Us

Here's your chance to see three asteroids in the night sky

TEPCO struggling to contain contaminated water

Arizona firefighter’s widow denied benefits over city’s ‘seasonal employee’ claim

The widow of one of the 19 Arizona firefighters killed battling a wildfire on June 30 is being denied salary and health benefits due to her despite her husband being a full-time employee, CBS News reported on Monday.

“I said to them, ‘My husband was a full-time employee. He went to work full-time for you,’” Juliann Ashcraft told CBS. “And what their response to me was, ‘Perhaps there was a communication issue in your marriage.’”

Ashcraft’s husband, Andrew Ashcraft, was part of the “hotshot” crew based out of Prescott, Arizona, that was consumed by a fire fueled by severe wind changes.

City officials contend that Andrew Ashcraft and 12 other members of the team were employed on a seasonal basis, which disqualifies them from the benefits for bereaved families of full-time city employees. The families of all 19 victims will get a one-time federal payment of $328,000 and worker’s compensation.

But CBS reported that Andrew Ashcraft was employed on a full-time basis, and officials with local union group United Yavapai Firefighters told CBS that he was the only one working 40 hours a week on a year-round basis among the firefighters currently denied full-time benefits



more at RawStory.com

Life in a Toxic Country

BEIJING — I RECENTLY found myself hauling a bag filled with 12 boxes of milk powder and a cardboard container with two sets of air filters through San Francisco International Airport. I was heading to my home in Beijing at the end of a work trip, bringing back what have become two of the most sought-after items among parents here, and which were desperately needed in my own household.

China is the world’s second largest economy, but the enormous costs of its growth are becoming apparent. Residents of its boom cities and a growing number of rural regions question the safety of the air they breathe, the water they drink and the food they eat. It is as if they were living in the Chinese equivalent of the Chernobyl or Fukushima nuclear disaster areas.

Before this assignment, I spent three and a half years reporting in Iraq, where foreign correspondents talked endlessly of the variety of ways in which one could die — car bombs, firefights, being abducted and then beheaded. I survived those threats, only now to find myself wondering: Is China doing irreparable harm to me and my family?

The environmental hazards here are legion, and the consequences might not manifest themselves for years or even decades. The risks are magnified for young children. Expatriate workers confronted with the decision of whether to live in Beijing weigh these factors, perhaps more than at any time in recent decades. But for now, a correspondent’s job in China is still rewarding, and so I am toughing it out a while longer. So is my wife, Tini, who has worked for more than a dozen years as a journalist in Asia and has studied Chinese. That means we are subjecting our 9-month-old daughter to the same risks that are striking fear into residents of cities across northern China, and grappling with the guilt of doing so.

Like them, we take precautions. Here in Beijing, high-tech air purifiers are as coveted as luxury sedans. Soon after I was posted to Beijing, in 2008, I set up a couple of European-made air purifiers used by previous correspondents. In early April, I took out one of the filters for the first time to check it: the layer of dust was as thick as moss on a forest floor. It nauseated me. I ordered two new sets of filters to be picked up in San Francisco; those products are much cheaper in the United States. My colleague Amy told me that during the Lunar New Year in February, a family friend brought over a 35-pound purifier from California for her husband, a Chinese-American who had been posted to the Beijing office of a large American technology company. Before getting the purifier, the husband had considered moving to Suzhou, a smaller city lined with canals, because he could no longer tolerate the pollution in Beijing.

Every morning, when I roll out of bed, I check an app on my cellphone that tells me the air quality index as measured by the United States Embassy, whose monitoring device is near my home. I want to see whether I need to turn on the purifiers and whether my wife and I can take our daughter outside.

continued at NYTimes.com

To RevElvis #567--that is a great article. I did not include it in my list so I am glad you have.

Water, Water, Nowhere

When water becomes scarce, conservatives become environmentalists.

If any problem is potent enough to overcome conservatives’ animus against government, it might be water scarcity. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, fear of death focuses the mind wonderfully.

Red states across the Midwest, Southwest and Great Plains glimpsed the demise of their way of life during last year’s drought, the worst in half a century. By August 2012, 43 percent of U.S. farms—encompassing nearly 60 percent of all U.S. cropland—were under “severe” drought conditions or worse according to USDA statistics. By September, more than 2,000 counties had been declared disaster areas.

The drought, which has eased somewhat but lingers in much of Kansas, is both a mirror of our global predicament and a warning about our collective future. The earth’s population is expected to grow by as many as 3 billion people by 2050, which translates into a 70 percent increase in food demand, according to UN statistics. Agriculture is by far the greatest drain on global water supplies, consuming nearly three-fourths of freshwater “withdrawals.” So the rapidly growing population will require ever-greater freshwater resources.

Yet it isn’t clear where that water will come from. And the problem of water scarcity is compounded by global warming, which is expected to increase the frequency and severity of droughts.

Even conservatives who are skeptical of environmental initiatives can see the logic of a public policy that addresses the problem.

In his State of the State speech last year (delivered before the worst of the drought), ultra-conservative Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, said that it was “way past time we move from a development policy with our water to a conservation ethic,” since “we have no future without water.”

One short-sighted solution to the problem of water scarcity is for states—and nations—to wage legal and rhetorical battles for access to water sources of neighboring states.

article at InTheseTimes.com

Climate change is making poison ivy grow bigger and badder

Poison ivy's shiny green leaves are gourmet cuisine for deer, bear and other animals. Birds like its white berries and spread the seeds by unmentionable means. But the leaves, berries and vine are the bane of humankind and primates. In the hours after the lacquer-like oil, urushiol, gets transferred at the slightest contact, mad scratching begins.

Enough urushiol to fit on the head of a pin can cause misery for 500 people. Even a billionth of a gram of urushiol on the skin is said to cause agony. But now the news worsens.

Chances are rising that whitetails and bruins will have plenty of the leafy greens to consume in coming decades, with people facing a growing challenge to avoid the green curse. Climate change is making poison ivy grow faster, bigger and meaner. Rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and higher temperatures are to poison ivy what garbage is for rats, dormant water is for mosquitoes and road kill is to buzzards.

Opposite of humans and mammals, plants take in carbon dioxide, which photosynthesis converts into carbohydrates, and release oxygen into the atmosphere. Higher CO2 benefits plant growth but especially poison ivy. Pie-pan sized leaves now are common. Poison ivy is choking trees and filling the edge of woodlands.

Lewis H. Ziska, a research weedecologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said laboratory and field studies show that poison ivy is advancing with climate change. That trend will continue as carbon dioxide levels keep rising from the current average level of about 400 parts per million to 560 ppm or higher in the next 30 to 50 years, with predicted levels reaching 800 ppm by century's end, he said.

Already poison ivy's growth and potency has doubled since the 1960s, and it could double again once CO2 levels reach the 560 ppm mark, Mr. Ziska said. As a result, Americans might have to scratch their way into a climate-altered future....


Read more

'Critical phase' for Iter fusion dream

"The world's largest bid to harness the power of fusion has entered a "critical" phase in southern France.

The Iter project at Cadarache in Provence is receiving the first of about one million components for its experimental reactor."

This BBC story is excellent science journalism, and beautifully illustrated.