Daily Science Dose

File this one under “why didn’t someone else think of this earlier?”

Scientists have figured out how to use satellite photos to find penguin colonies. Look for the poop. Much like how some future (or alien?) archeologist will search for former human population centers by looking for our massive landfills, researchers that follow the habits of flightless birds are finding new colonies by finding the waste product of said colonies.

Photo montage is from the British Antarctic Survey. The top right satellite shot is of Cape Darnley.

Up until now, most penguin colonies are found by happenstance in a way. The Antarctic winter is quite chilly, and few scientists hang out for it, so when biologists show up in the spring, it’s a matter of luck (or the past use of a spot) that they find the remains of rookeries — most adults have jetted by spring.

I mentioned that penguin researchers may find breeding grounds in the same spot of previous years, but with the changing ice conditions due to atmospheric warming, penguins are on the move. Which means that using the past to find the present isn’t working out so well. Enter satellites.

It’s like Google Earth maps for penguins. But of course, you have to know what you are looking for. Lots and lots of poop.

Penguin biologist Phil Trathan and cartographer Peter Fretwell, both of the British Antarctic Survey, wondered if it was possible to do better by tracking the penguins from space. The birds themselves don’t show up in satellite pictures; their black-and-white bodies are too similar to the white ice with black shadows. Not so with guano. “The poo just sort of stands out at you,” says Trathan. Emperors are the only penguins that breed on the sea ice, so he knows who’s doing the pooping. — Science Mag

From the initial analysis, of the 34 known breeding grounds, six have disappeared. Those six were located in warmer, more northernly areas. If the penguins are moving south to stay cold enough, the problem is that penguins also need to stay near the coast. So this pattern could spell trouble for Emperors and most penguins by extension.

The good news is that the team found 10 new colonies. The population numbers are still hazy at this point, so who knows if the six colonies are now part of the ten new ones or if the ten were always there and never found before now. But the satellite images will be a useful tool in going forward in penguin population studies.

penguins, satellite, satellite images, breeding grounds, Emperor penguin, guano, Antarctica, global warming, climate change, biologists, rookeries, marine mammals

Some big news came out of Washington today…

Maybe you are aware that the US Congress is finally attempting to address anthropogenic climate change, and by that I mean to say that the US government is maybe poised to possibly pass legislation in support of not only lowering carbon emissions, but also promoting renewable and clean energy sources.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee (ECC for the rest of this post) has approved H.R. 2454 — the American Clean Energy and Security Act — and has reported the bill to the House, for what will undoubtedly be a fun time to start watching C-SPAN. The vote just among the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee was 33 to 25, which yes, is a decisive victory within the microcosm of a congressional body, but still, methinks that the fight against “clean energy” legislation will be, ahem, dirty.

However, maybe this country has had enough of the Bush Era thinking that if we bury our heads in the sand, it won’t get as hot. The ECC was urged by many an environmental group to send the bill to the House, but you might be surprised at how many energy and manufacturing companies have given their support to the proposed legislation. Energy companies like Shell and BP, Duke Energy and Entergy; manufacturing concerns like Alcoa and GE, DuPont and Dow Chemical . Even the Big 3 automakers are signed on to support reducing the US carbon emissions by 83% by 2050 (working off 2005 levels).

Now, whether you blame human activity for global climate change issues or not, this move toward clean, renewable energy is smart and forward-thinking. Oil, gas and coal will run out one day. Why not do some planning now to make the transition easier for everyone when that time comes? Not only that, but fossil fuels almost invariably result in some form of waste that pollutes our land, air and water. I’ve never heard of a wind turbine leaching heavy metals into the groundwater supply.

Then again, I don’t want to give too much credit to Congress just yet…but hey, it’s a start.

Committee on Energy and Commerce, Energy and Commerce Committee, House, US, United States government, climate change legislation, Congress, global warming, renewable energy, fossil fuels, clean energy, green jobs, carbon emissions

It seems that Entergy’s CEO and chairman Wayne Leonard is the one of the few energy industry leaders that doesn’t oppose a proposed cap and trade system that is being debated in Congress. In fact, Leonard is not only not opposed, but he supports the legislation — as long as it is the right cap and trade system.

Entergy Corporation, based in Louisiana, is blessed with natural gas and a sizable “fleet” of nuclear power generation stations. And we all know that nuclear power is clean* and natural gas, according to energy experts like Sarah Palin, is clean and green. And that means that Entergy produces electricity from some of the cleaner sources around in terms of carbon dioxide emissions.

*But not in terms of radioactive waste that lasts and lasts.

So, let’s say that Congress passes cap’n trade legislation that would auction off credits for companies to be allowed to produce carbon emissions. A company like Entergy would have to buy fewer of those credits or permits in order to cover its rather low levels of emissions. That means less costs are passed down to you, the consumer. That makes Entergy’s Leonard happy.

However, Entergy has not done much to expand its renewable power portfolio. And one form of the cap and trade law could include a government mandate as to how much renewable energy a company has to produce. That would make Leonard sad. He doesn’t think the Fed should mandate this renewable component, as he feels that the free market will prevail in encouraging companies to invest in the most economical renewables (if there are any in Leonard’s eyes) in order to decrease costs for pollution permits.

And then, there is the whole idea of the Fed giving away the credits to companies based on its individual emissions based on say a year chosen at random, like 2005. And if your company can reduce its emissions and not have to use all of those permits, your company can sell them to companies that still pollute. Well, Entergy had already reduced what emissions they could have by 2005, because they were responsible and did it way back in 2000. So, now all that hard work they already did, when it was voluntary, will work against them, as Entergy will get a smaller amount of credits to sell off to the the coal plant down the street, who never did anything in the first place or even now to reduce its emissions levels.

So, this insight into how one energy company views the current debate over cap and trade legislation is interesting to me, but also rather irritating. Think about it. Entergy is but one of many, many large and rich corporations that produce energy and do in it a way that pollutes the Earth. Each company is going to do its best to pressure someone in Congress to adjust, rewrite or add an amendment to the cap and trade law, if it even passes, that will be advantageous to that company, perhaps to the detriment to another company, who will then fight the new law. I just don’t see cap and trade passing any time soon, but then again, I’m not sure if it will make a difference in the long run.

And then again again, it’s not fair to blame the energy companies. They are only giving us what we want — cheap energy and a lot of it.

Reading the article in the Times-Picayune, I noted that Entergy is spending more than 4 million dollars on lobbying Congress to pass a cap and trade law that will benefit them. It makes you wonder how much the Coal Industry as a whole is spending to fight cap and trade altogether? What if all that money were spent on research and development of new technologies, more efficient energy infrastructure, and a better way to deal with spent nuclear fuel?

energy, Entergy, electricity, renewable energy, nuclear power, natural gas, Louisiana, cap and trade, Congress, carbon emissions, pollution

I was happy with the “talk the talk, but does he walk the walk” comment.

Thank you, CBS, for covering this charade foisted on the American Public for far-too-long. I can bitch and bitch about coal, but when it comes right down to it, nothing is going to change anytime soon.

What I don’t get is this fanatical need for the US Energy Kings to push the “grow the economy” paradigm. Maybe our economy is built on the same inflated values of Wall Street. It’s like we just found this cheap energy trough, and like pigs, we are stuffing ourselves with no thought to the consequences (like why is the farmer fattening us up in the first place?).

I am seeing the same scary consumptive trend in anything eco- or green or earth-friendly. Earth friendly would mean cutting back on all that sh*t you buy every day. If we all go out and replace our entire wardrobes with organic cotton and bamboo, we are still creating a waste stream that undermines our efforts to live lightly. If you don’t need it, don’t buy it. That’s as eco- as you can get, but then that doesn’t “grow our economy,” does it?

Back to 60 Minutes…it’s about time that a major news organization calls our the Emperor’s nudity. Will it make a difference? Ah, heck no. Seriously, I hate to be pessimistic here, but we are doomed. Like I mentioned yesterday, we are not all going to die, but it’s going to be bad.

Here’s my great idea, and you heard it here first. Use carbon dioxide in fission-style reactions and capture the energy released while producing oxygen and carbon monoxide, which can then be converted into liquid fuels. Oh, crap, someone beat me to it.

First, let me begin by saying that yes, I do believe that anthropogenic activity is creating a dangerous imbalance in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. But do I think that everything can be chalked up to global warming or that we are all going to die from global warming, then the answer is no.

Global warming is not going to kill us all, but it will kill some and it will make life on this planet a heck of a lot more difficult for many, many others. But the most important thing is that any imbalance creates further imbalance in other systems, and by continuing to pump more and more GHG into our air, we are mucking up the system, which will lead to other systems going out of whack. If there were only a few of us living on this planet, then we would be able to migrate to other areas when our homes get flooded from rising seas or pull up stakes and leave an arable agricultural area turned desert from a shift in ocean currents (Australia anyone?)

Well, it seems that researchers are alarmed at the extent of the solar minimum going on. And with less sun activity, that means that less of the sun’s heat is hitting the planet. It’s true that the sun goes through cycles, but this is an unusually long minima, which scientists call a grand minima if it’s long enough.

The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it’s gone on far longer than anyone expected – and there is no sign of the Sun waking up. “This is the lowest we’ve ever seen. We thought we’d be out of it by now, but we’re not,” says Marc Hairston of the University of Texas. And it’s not just the sunspots that are causing concern. There is also the so-called solar wind – streams of particles the Sun pours out – that is at its weakest since records began. In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree. “This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” says NASA solar scientist David Hathaway. But this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming. –The Independent

Here’s the kicker. The last solar maximum ended right around the end of the last century. And some researchers are showing data that shows that the Earth’s temperature has tapered off since that time, so if the current solar minimum is holding global temps in check, then maybe, just maybe this whole global warming thing is false alarm.

I foresee this solar minimum issue becoming the next talking points for the climate sceptics on their next round on the talkshow circuit.

Ok, I’m going out on a limb here. Let’s say that yes, the Sun is going into a cooling period and we can buy some time before the full effects of the Carbon Crisis are felt. That might just be our only chance to ensure that we can curb our reliance on living fat of the oily and gaseous land, and start reversing some of the damage we have inflicted on our closed-ecosystem. Global warming may be held off, but for how long? For every Minimum, there is a Maximum. And if when that next Maximum hits, will we be worse off due to inaction and inertia, or could we be ready for it?

Just sayin’ is all.

global warming, research, climate change, climate sceptics, sunspots, solar, minimum, maximum, minima, solar activity, greenhouse gases, carbon, emissions, ecosystem, ocean currents

In a not-so-stunning reversal of the Bush Era Suppression of Science, the EPA has supposedly sent a proposal for a “endangerment” finding for greenhouse gases to the White House, according to Reuters.

Finally.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in a case brought before it by a alliance of states and environmental groups that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are indeed a pollutant, and therefore should be regulated by the Clean Air Act and its erstwhile enforcer, the Environmental Protection Agency. You see, the EPA’s argument against regulating GHG emissions (and in particular carbon dioxide) was that there was uncertainty as to whether or not GHGs caused global warming.

The Bush Years were not a happy time at the EPA, and let’s just be glad it’s over.

What does an endangerment finding mean for us? Well, if something is a public danger it is then regulated by the EPA in terms of how much of it can safely be pumped into the air, water, what have you. That begs the question what is a safe amount of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, even water vapor (although water vapor is directly related to temperature, so keep the temperature low and there is in turn less water vapor).

To determine a safe amount…This is what I’ve been waiting for, people. I am curious as to how much more carbon dioxide and CFCs and nitrous oxide can be allowed before we hit a tipping point. Not trying to be a Negative Nelly today, but we really need to take a sober look at the state of our planet.

On a positive note, I was heartened to see President Obama put out an op-ed in newspapers across the globe, calling for collective action and cooperation in the economic crisis. I’m hoping that his next international appeal will be for collective action on climate change.

EPA, White House, President Obama, Bush, carbon emissions, pollutant, greenhouse gases, GHG, methane, Clean Air Act, global warming

A new Gallup poll has been released that shows that more Americans believe that the threats of global warming are exaggerated. When asked the question, “Thinking about what is said in the news, in your view is the seriousness of global warming …generally exaggerated, generally correct, or generally underestimated”, 41 percent of respondents answered that they felt the seriousness is generally exaggerated.

Ok, what news programs are they watching? Other than a few “specials” on CNN, I never see reporting that makes a big deal about climate change; in fact, most stories I see add more doubt that necessary. More than a few environmental and media watchdog groups feel that the media, in their pointless pursuit of fair and balanced reporting, often add global warming sceptics, not matter how much of a minority they are in the scientific community, just to appear to be objective.

Now, as a quasi-reporter, I can give the media props for trying to appear objective, but when the media is owned by men like Rupert Murdoch and ran by men like Michael Eisner and Sumner Redstone, then it is only natural to question the objectivity of a news organization that is part of a multinational corporation whose main purpose is to keep the profits rolling in. Furthermore, the “news” is no longer the pace where one goes for hard reporting and in-depth analyses of current issues — no, sadly, the news is nothing more than entertainment. (Sorry, Keith Olberman, I usually end up agreeing with you, and even though I am also a liberal thinker, I cannot call you an objective newsman.)

If you want to look at a handy chart to see who owns what in the media, click here.

I went to school for screenwriting, and in those classes, the number one lesson is “create conflict.” And for some reason, the News Media have taken that same lesson for fiction and drama and have added that ingredient to the objective news. Sometimes reporting the news should report the story itself, and not try to make a huge dramatic production of it, but adding players that have nothing to do with the story itself, much like those global warming deniers.

The worst part is that you often see the same “naysayers” on all the shows. They just make money by going around the news curcuit, bringing their own mics, mindlessly disagreeing with the science being presented by scientists that are actually working in the field and not going around the news circuit commenting on other scientists’ work.

Back to the poll…

The largest group responding “generally exaggerated” are, ta dah, Republicans.

Gallup attributes the rise to Republicans and independents believing media coverage of global warming is exaggerated. In the past 12 months alone, the ranks of Republican doubters grew from 59 percent to 66 percent, and independents from 33 percent to 44 percent. Among Democrates[sic], the rate remains about 20 percent. –Environmental Leader

Go figure…And do you notice how the spikes in the poll are in election years?

global warming, sceptics, news, media, reporting, balanced, Gallup poll, CNN, Republicans, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Eisner, Sumner Redstone, election, science, politics, objectivity, bias in media

After 8 long, long years of a presidential administration who couldn’t separate their religious beliefs from scientific facts, President Obama changed the science “climate” in the White House with the stroke of a pen.

Yesterday, not only did President Obama overturn the Bush limits on embryonic stem cell research, but he also signed a memo to his science adviser to choose only the best experts in their scientific fields, rather than those scientists that are willing to change outcomes, omit data and manipulate evidence to fit certain ideologies. The new directive also calls for increased protections for those who uncover inappropriate handling of science or “whistleblow” on bad science.

The idea, the president said in remarks before an audience of lawmakers, scientists, patients advocates and patients in the East Room, is to ensure that “we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology”: a line that drew more applause than any other. Irv Weissman, who directs an institute at Stanford University devoted to studying stem cells, called the declaration “of even greater importance” than the stem cell announcement itself. –NY Times

Well, praise the lord and hallelujah. The Bush Era was downright hostile to science in many aspects — you can read more about that stuff here and here and here. And those examples are all from only the last few months of Bush’s Reign. Before that, numerous reports were released detailing the Bush Admin’s penchant for asking scientists to add “doubt” to the science behind global warming and climate change, to delete info about contraception on federal websites, and just generally use science to its own ends rather than scientifically-sound ends.

Will this mean that all policy will suddenly become better? Probably not, but at least there is an understanding in our national leadership that science is not our enemy.

As a science writer and teacher, I couldn’t be more pleased at Obama’s attempt to change the presidential attitude toward intelligence and reasoning, but it is just that, an attempt. Still, to have that kind of thinking in such an influential office is a breath of fresh air.

President Obama, science, stem cell research, embryonic cells, Bush, global warming, policy, whistleblower, global warming, contraception, ideology, conservative

We humans are in quite a noodle. We need energy. Both in our bodies in the form of food and in our creature comforts in the form of fuel. Crops need good soil in which to grow, and there is only so much good soil in the world. Our fuel choice du seicle are fossil fuels, and though they sure do create a lot of energy, they also create a lot of carbon dioxide and other environmentally-detrimental substances. So-called biofuels are those that are not based upon deposits of petrochemicals underground, but instead rather on renewable (read re-growable) plant or other organic matter. Seems like these fuels would make a better choice for humanity’s power lust, but…

Some biofuels are better than others.

Japtropha

Jatropha curcas, also known as the Barbados Nut and the Physic Nut is a perennial shrub that produces black seeds or “nuts” that contain a large amount of oil that can be used directly in some generators and can also be processed into a higher quality bio-diesel. The seed is about one-third oil, and one hectare of jatropha bushes can produce over one metric ton of oil in even poor soils.

And that is the real bonus of jatropha. Jatropha bushes can grow just about anywhere. The bushes only need about 10 inches of rain a year, and that is only when they are young. Additionally, the Jatrophas are long-lasting producers and can live for 40 years.

Jatropha up until recently was not cultivated as a domesticated crop, but that may be changing as the potential of jatropha is being researched and developed in such developing countries as Zambia, Mali, India, China and the Phillipines. Jatropha originates in the Central America, and was exported to colonies to grow as live hedges to keep livestock and crops safe. The bushes are poisonous to most animals, so it acts as a great fence, in addition to acting as a good wind break for more delicate crops. The bushes were also inter-planted among field crops, and it was found that the bushes grew very well as companion plants.

Oh, did I mention that Japtropha has no need for pesticides and deters pests from entering the field? Yeah, jatropha is naturally disease- and pest-resistant. And the matter that is left over after the seeds have been pressed for oil is naturally high in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, which are the big three nutrients used to fertilize other crops.

Let’s review. Jatropha can grow in poor soils that won’t grow other crops and needs very little water. It can be interplanted among other crops as a secondary crop, and acts as a pest-deterrent. It needs no fertilizing, and it’s waste matter makes a great fertilizer rich in nutrients. Jatropha produces a biofuel that can be used to run generators in small villages as well as processed to produce biodiesel.

In addition to biofuels, the jatropha oil can also be made into soap, charcoal, and mosquito repellant.

jatropha, jatropha curcas, biofuels, biodiesel, fossil fuels, carbon dioxide, crops, agriculture, energy, fertilizer, pesticide, nutrients, soil

It seems that nothing will escape the ravages of global warming, not even weeds. Nothing else can stop them, but maybe accidentally, mankind has figured out a way to heat up our world so much that even those plants that will survive anywhere and in large maddening numbers will finally be vanquished.

Oh, I am just being glib.

But we do need some good science news from time to time, and I aim to please. Researchers from Princeton have realized that global warming may help the fight against invasive species in the Western United States. Areas that once welcomed any and all plants may not be as inviting to pests like cheatgrass, yellow

starthislte, spotted knapweed, tamarisk and leafy spurge.

But before we get too excited, remember a door doesn’t close without a window opening. And the same could be said for this seemingly good news. Hotter and drier temperatures in the American West may hinder some species from taking over, but in other parts of the world, the increasing temps will only serve to make previous unattractive areas a paradise to other invasive species.

The researchers assessed the relationship between climate change and the distribution of five prominent invasive plants in the western United States - known colloquially as the “kudzus of the West” - cheatgrass; spotted knapweed; yellow starthistle; tamarisk; and leafy spurge. Such plants are defined as invasive because they were brought into this country from other lands and now dominate and alter ecosystems in ways that threaten native wildlife, agriculture, and ranching. All have greatly expanded their ranges in recent decades in the western U.S., causing millions of dollars in damage to farmlands and rangelands. Invasive plants are increasingly expensive to control, and it is widely believed that global warming will make the problem worse.

But Bradley and her co-authors find that global warming may also reduce the competitiveness of some invasive plants if conditions become climatically unsuitable to the weeds, “creating opportunities for restoration in areas currently dominated by intractable invasive species,” according to the study.

The five species were selected in part because they represent the most problematic plants in the western U.S. The study authors created “bioclimatic envelope models,” wherein the authors identified where the invasive plant species occurred, and identified critical climate variables such as precipitation patterns and temperature patterns that are associated with the presence of the invasive plants under investigation. The authors then determined what combined set of climate variables best described the distribution of these weeds, and mapped all of the places in the U.S. where these climate conditions occur.

Developing such models is important because scientists can use them to assess how changing climate conditions might affect the distributions of invasive plants. Maps of how invasion risk is likely to change with global warming are also important for land managers designing long-term protocols for fighting invasive plants.–WWS at Princeton news release

And maybe it is just me, but I feel the need to point out that if areas of the American West are going to be becoming less and less hospitable to invasive species, won’t those same areas equally be as inhospitable to us?

However, the bright side of this changing climate pattern paradigm is that maybe department of natural resources people will be able to get a leg up on some really, pesky invasive species. And if the time is right, it will only be our own fault for not taking advantage of this opportunity.

global warming, climate change, invasive species

It finally happened. A reputable scientist from a top organization has put it out there, and it was a team of scientists from probably the top organization in the US for this kind of work.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a team of scientists that just published a new study basically saying that once carbon levels reach a certain peak, there will be some dire consequences. Ok, got that. But the problem is that once a peak is reached, say 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmospehere (we are currently at 385 ppm), there will be no going back. Alright, “no going back” is a bit extreme, but what I mean is that once a certain threshold is crossed, and we most likely have already passed one of those thresholds, certain permanent* changes will be inevitable whether or not we cut all carbon emissions once past certain thresholds.

*Please be aware that nothing on this planet is permanent. I use this word to explain certain long-long-term weather and climate patterns that will change and become seemingly “permanent.”

The study looks at certain thresholds for carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere: 450, 600, and even up to 1000 ppm. The research finds that once a threshold is reached and certain climatic changes are taking place, it would be more than one thousand years before any drastic cuts in carbon emissions would mitigate the situation.

“Our study convinced us that current choices regarding carbon dioxide emissions will have legacies that will irreversibly change the planet,” said [Susan]Solomon [NOAA senior scientist], who is based at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.

“It has long been known that some of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years,” Solomon said. “But the new study advances the understanding of how this affects the climate system.”

The study examines the consequences of allowing CO2 to build up to several different peak levels beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million and then completely halting the emissions after the peak.

The authors found that the scientific evidence is strong enough to quantify some irreversible climate impacts, including rainfall changes in certain key regions, and global sea level rise.

If CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s North American Dust Bowl in zones including southern Europe, northern Africa, southwestern North America, southern Africa and western Australia.

The study notes that decreases in rainfall that last not just for a few decades but over centuries are expected to have a range of impacts that differ by region. Such regional impacts include decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts. — SPX via TerraDaily

Not all the peaks showed dire climatic changes, but they all showed substantial climate changes, and the length of those changes were made longer by the heat-transfer of the ocean, which is standard physics and cannot be stopped. In fact, a big problem that this study exposes is that warmer water takes up more space, simple by the physics of the water molecules. Heat them and they expand. Water will expand.

And if water is going to expand due to higher temperatures, then water levels will rise, whether or not glaciers and ice caps melt. The NOAA team found that base water rise, from just the expansion of the ocean water itself, will account for up to 3 feet in sea level rise.

So, in closing, this new study says, we are screwed.

carbon dioxide, study, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, water, sea levels, climate change, global warming, melt, climate , climate patterns

Setting: Kruger National Park Wildlife Reserve, South Africa along the Mozambique border

Three dead crocodiles were found within the park. The victims suffered a painful death. The fat within their bodies hardened into a rubber-like state. The victims were rendered powerless to move. The crocodiles could not move to eat or drink, and soon they died of either starvation, thirst or exposure.

That was last May. Now, over 170 crocodiles have perished in much the same way within Kruger National Park, a showcase national park that hosts a good number of top predators like lions and leopards in addition to other large mammals like elephants, hippos and rhinos.

The science has come back on what is killing these huge crocs, the Nile variety of crocodile. Pansteatitis or “Yellow Fat Disease” is not a pretty disease and it affects other animals as well as the crocodiles. Domestic cats have been found to suffer from the disease, and also birds and fresh water turtles may become afflicted with this mysterious disease.

The condition attacks fat stores, depleting anti-oxidants and inflaming the fat in a process that scientists believe is very painful.

“There was a big concern that other species could be affected,” Jan Myburgh, veterinarian specialising in toxicology, told AFP.

The chief worry was for lions — seen feeding on the dead crocodiles — and other cat species, based on the susceptibility of domestic cats, but no dead or sick felines have been found, he said.– TerraDaily

The real problem is that no one can figure out how or why this disease strikes. Most of the scientists working on the case (as well as similar cases over the years) are pointing to strained river resources in the area. The rivers within the Park include the Olifants, the Timbavati, and the Sabie.

The Kruger deaths occurred in a remote gorge which has faced increased siltation from a dam in neighbouring Mozambique, and is fed by one of South Africa’s hardest working rivers which supports various heavy industries.

Clues are now being sought by a multi-pronged programme looking at the entire river system to get a better understanding of the cause and effect links around the deaths.

So, this could be any number of reasons that these Nile crocodiles, which can grow up to 5 meters or 15 feet long and weigh up to 500 pounds, are dying off in such a disturbing way. Not enough fresh water, warmer water, polluted water, diseases spreading in from upriver, a decline in the general health of big carnivores or scavengers willing to eat their own kind.

Disturbing all the same.

crocodiles, South Africa, Kruger National Park, disease, yellow fat disease, pansteatitis, rubber, muscle, health, wildlife, predators, Africa, Mozambique, rivers, water resources

He’s been a professor at Stanford, he runs the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, oh, and he was part of team of scientists that won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. Not a bad choice for Energy secretary, eh?

And the best part is that he understands the carbon conundrum. Kudos, Mr. Obama, for choosing Mr. Chu as your man to lead this nation’s energy policy.

So much better than that Dick Cheney, plain and tall…and in the pocket of the oil and coal companies. Not that Cheney was Secretary of the Department of Energy, but he might as well have been with his closed door energy wheelings and dealings. Not to mention the team of henchmen Bush employed to allow those oil and coal companies to ignore the consequences of carbon emissions.

I see a brighter and more informed energy future for America and in turn, the World.

Steven Chu is a big advocate for energy conservation. In a Q&A with Science News, he details that buildings account for nearly 40% of all energy consumed, and that with new more efficient technology and building methods, we can get that percentage down to half of that. He also feels that number can drop further, achieving the same results on 25% of what had previously been needed to run the same buildings.

Chu also advocates governmental tax credits to spur advances in energy technologies. In addition to tax credits, Chu feels that the US should be building a “greener” workforce in energy industries, by supporting universities and laboratories in developing the next generation of scientists that will continue to advance the field. Give more grants to professors, who in turn can employ more graduate students, who will in turn become the scientists that develop new and better technology to work to solve our inevitable energy crisis.

Steven Chu, Obama, Secretary of Energy, Department of Energy

The United Nations has projected that by 2025, half of the world’s nations may not have enough clean, potable water to drink. By 2050, that number increases to 75 percent.

Even today, the UN estimates that one in six people around the world suffer from some extent of water shortage.

The UN bases its findings on two factors: Population growth coupled with changes in the Earth’s climate that is drying up the surface of the planet.

More people need more water. Unfortunately, in this Universe, there is a law about matter not being able to be created nor destroyed, at least not without some major help from some rather experimental practices that involve some rather large super colliders.

Russian news service, RIA Novosti, published a piece exploring the implications of the UN’s dire warning. It’s funny that the “opinion & analysis” piece calls on the United States and Europe to update water infrastructure in addition to pointing out that we should be shipping food to arid regions rather than growing crops in areas that would need inordinate amounts of water in order to grow those crops.

What is the way out? It is possible to deliver food products to desert or semi-desert areas to help local people do without water-intensive agriculture. Advanced European countries and the United States have large natural water resources but should focus on modernizing their water supply infrastructure. Lack of proper repairs is causing considerable and irretrievable water losses.

The United States and Canada, for instance, will have to spend a total of $36 trillion in the next 25 years on the modernization of their water supply systems, but life is worth it. –RIA Novosti

Granted, the Us and Europe will have to upgrade and repair wasteful, aging water infrastructure systems, but to only look to the US and Europe as the only ones who can save the world’s supply of fresh water is a bit like looking at President-elect Obama as the saviour. The US and Europe can use water more efficiently and less wastefully, but I think the problem is a little bit bigger than new water pipes.

We need to curb population growth. Not in the US and Europe, but in developing nations around the world. It is not the nicest thing to say, being an American and over-consuming my fair share of water (among other resources), but let’s call a spade a spade.

Of course, we also have to look at the issue of climate change. But let’s say that humans are not responsible — calm down, this is just an exercise — for the changes in the world’s climate at present which is drying up huge areas of the planet. Let’s say that it is a normal transition in the life of the planet. No matter what is causing it — nature or man — with less water (among other resources), we have to accept that our fragile world can only support so many of us.

water, UN, United Nations, United States, Europe, drinking water, water supply, resources, population, crops, climate change, shortages, planet, humans

How sad is it that it takes television commercials to inform the American public of, well, anything.

I have complained in the past about the Clean Coal ad campaign. So-called clean coal is not an economically viable alternative to simply allowing all kinds of bad stuff — carbon dioxide, methane, mercury, arsenic, to name a few — to enter the air we breathe. Furthermore, no one has actually built a successful large clean coal power generating plant.

Well, finally, environmental groups are entering the ad campaign game to counter the Clean Coal ad campaign. And Al Gore is putting his Nobel-prize-winning-weight behind the campaign.

A group of environmental organizations concerned about global warming, including one backed by former vice president Al Gore, is launching an advertising campaign this week to counter the coal industry’s efforts to promote what it calls “clean coal.”

The groups will spend millions of dollars on television, newspaper and outdoor ads, the first of which shows a factory door in the middle of a barren landscape and the slogan: “In reality, there is no such thing as ‘clean coal.’ ” The ads say that “there isn’t a single commercial coal power plant in America today that captures its global warming pollution.”

The campaign is a response to a $15 million-plus ad campaign that began earlier this year by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an industry-backed group that has tried to spruce up coal’s image. –Washington Post

Gore is super-serial about this greenwashing of the coal industry. He goes on to say that “We cannot base the strategy for human survival on the illusions of the industry that coal is already clean. It is not. What they want to do is build hundreds, if not thousands, of new coal plants on a vague promise that they might be able to retrofit those plants with a technology that does not exist.”

Of course, the Big Coal lobby’s public facade known as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity had a response.

… Joe Lucas, vice president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, says that technology has helped coal plants meet environmental standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and that it will ultimately help reduce carbon dioxide emissions too. “To use the words of a new resident of Washington, ‘Yes we can’ invest in the technologies to make us capable of storing and capturing carbon from coal plants,” Lucas said.

“Ultimately”…hmm, that’s a funny word, as it describes a time, but that time could be a long, long time away. I give the coal industry credit for trying, but to come out with an ad campaign that plainly sells lies to Americans (and to the world, ultimately)is, frankly, irresponsible.

Instead of pumping hundreds of millions of money into researching clean technology for a resource that is limited and will run out, why not invest that same money into a renewable, clean source of energy? I may be talking crazy to some shareholders of energy companies that rely on coal — which is, like, all of them — but are we as a species really that stupid to not only believe in wasting money on short-term R&D, but also to believe the Coal Industry’s lies?

coal, clean, energy, industry, mining, technology, ad campaign, commercials, Al Gore, greenwashing, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, renewable, resources