Lab Rats : Climate Change

Clichés you may want to dump

Seema Singh — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:39:00 GMT

Here's a must-read from the science section of Wired- 5 "atrocious science clichés to throw down a black hole". I think they are not only used in science but elsewhere as well, with equal triteness and hit discerning readers with annoying banality.

For those who don't have the time on hand, here's a summary of what sucks in science (according to Wired):

Holy grail
Silver bullet
Shedding light
Missing link
Paradigm shift

What is equally interesting is the readers' own selection of clichés in the comments section - quantum leap, at the end of the day, tip of the iceberg, possibilities are endless...

Anyway, I have my own small list, which incidentally applies more to information and communication technology than to science:

1. Solutions (if it's software, pls say so, if something else, be specific)
2. Platform technology (uhh...explain)
3. Web 2.0, or even 3.0 (come on, don't be lazy; specify which precise tech/tool/apps you'd like to refer to)
4. Innovative (who says he isn't?)
5. Citing the number of hits/trends from Google as if it were the last word... (some Wired readers find this hackneyed as well)
6. Global warming (it's blanket use gives a wrong message, climate change is better since every place is not getting warmer)
7. ‘Peer-reviewed' journal (science writers should know that all academic journals are peer-reviewed [of course with varying standards] and they have to know this fact, not pass on to the readers)

Which clichés would you like to chuck?

Share this post: email it! | del.icio.us! | digg it! | newsVine!

Who wants the science ministry???

Jacob Koshy — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:03:00 GMT

Like the average hack, i'm curious who's going to take what portfolio in this post-election "yes-we-can" Delhi.. Specifically, what's going to happen in science and technology. Unlike the powerful Home ministry and the remunerative telecom industry, science and technology isn't among the to-die-for posts.

That's because the ministry of science and technology is essentially a funding organisation, and given that hard core research and development rarely happens out of Indian companies, the minister rarely has to take path-breaking high-impact, executive decisions. Couple of months ago, a reliable Mr Someone in political circles, told me off record that the previous science minister, Kapil Sibal, was eyeing a more 'powerful' ministry. " Atleast something on the lines of education or environment," Mr Someone told me. I haven't been able to confirm it with the minister, though.

Incidentally, environment is suddenly very sexy, thanks to climate change. In the last few years, three ministers of the Dravida Munettra Kazhagam have ambled through it and the last few months, it was under the Prime Minister. That's about how much in demand it was!! But thanks to climate change morphing into a geo-political issue from a geeky, niche environmentalist rant, and an upcoming conclave in Copenhagen, the environment minister now becomes a prominent face on international negotiation tables.

But technocrats who've been with prominent institutions such as the CSIR and DST in Delhi say that changing governments rarely impact S&T in the country. S&T's main problems in India are human resources related (smart guys choosing careers in IT instead of basic research, smart science grads pursuing their Phds in the US and never coming back) and thus a matter of inspiring students over several years. Not as quick as promising 60,000 crores to farmers!

Share this post: email it! | del.icio.us! | digg it! | newsVine!

How will you honour the Earth Day?

Seema Singh — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:55:00 GMT

...If you aren't already dismissing it as a media event, with much ink and airtime devoted to it.

No doubt there will be some media hoopla, but due to the elections and IPL matches, I suspect the ‘one-day' green debate will be muted this time.

But I think by now there is consensus, even globally, that climate change is anthropogenic, i.e. man made. So, it's logical that we ask ourselves, and each other, what are we doing, or what we are prepared to do, to stop (or slow) climate change.

This isn't gimmicky. The US National Science Foundation is spending $6 million to study how people make (or will make) decisions that would ultimately impact the environment. Read here what the objectives of this project are and ‘why isn't the brain green'.

Basically, researchers "consider global warming a singular opportunity to study how we react to long-term trade-offs, in the form of sacrifices we might make now in exchange for uncertain climate benefits far off in the future."

Whatever the outcome of this study, on this Earth Day (April 22) what ONE step are you willing to take that would reduce your environmental footprint? Here are some suggestions; some trite, some novel.

1. If there is a ‘Green' candidate in your area, vote for him/her.

2. Replace ALL incandescent light bulbs in your house with compact fluorescent light bulbs.

3. Ride a bicycle to work, walk or just take the public transport -- at least one day in a week.

4. Plant a sapling or donate one to a park, field or any ‘green' agency.

5. Ensure that you and those around you don't keep the tap on while brushing their teeth (you can save up to 4-9 litres per person).

6. Congregate, take part in any green event around you - as the NY Times article above says "Climate change can be easily viewed as a very large ‘commons dilemma'."

7. Vow to use a bucket for cleaning your vehicle, not piped water.

8. Keep the thermostat a few degrees higher this summer (I try to do this in office, but I'm not always successful-- it's daily battle I fight); a few degrees lower in the winter.

9. Carry drinking water from home to avoid buying bottled water.

10. Think five times before you print a document at work place.

If nothing else, go watch Disneynature's movie Earth, which debuts on April 22 in theatres!

Share this post: email it! | del.icio.us! | digg it! | newsVine!

The Great Barrier Reef is declining

Seema Singh — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:30:00 GMT

In yet another blow from the warming climate, the world's largest coral reef system, the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, is on a decline.

One of the wonders of the natural world, which comprises more than 3000 reefs, has had the slowest rate of growth in the past 400 years, says a new study in today's issue of Science.

Researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science provide the first rigorous picture as well as empirical data on how increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is changing the way coral reefs absorb calcium from seawater to calcify (and harden) their skeletons.

This finding could mean trouble for the numerous marine ecosystems associated with the Reef, as well as for other calcifying organisms all over the world.

In their study, Glenn De'ath and colleagues investigated 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 different reefs. Their work suggests that a "combination of global warming, declining pH, and decreasing carbonate content in seawater is to blame."

Massive Porites are distributed throughout the tropical and subtropical Indo-Pacific. The picture above is of a colony growing in shallow waters of the Great Barrier Reef. Image courtesy: Jurgen Freund of Freund Factory

Like trees, corals have annual growth bands that make it possible to go back calculated years in time and correlate with sea surface temperature and other environmental data during the same period. Calcification in these creatures has declined by 13.3 % in the last 20 years, which is unprecedented in four centuries.

In the early 1990s marine scientists had predicted that ocean acidification might one day threaten corals. But in July 2008 at an International Coral Reef Symposium they gave the people about 10 years to pull up their socks. But this finding suggests perhaps they were too generous: the threat engulfed the corals more than a decade ago!

Since coral reefs are part of the food chain for tens of thousands of other marine organisms and are central to the marine ecosystem, researchers warn that the productivity of the world's oceans would change.

See and read more about the Reef here:

Share this post: email it! | del.icio.us! | digg it! | newsVine!

Climate, carbon, and market finance

Seema Singh — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 07:37:00 GMT

Steep cuts in carbon emissions have already been proposed, but it seems the world needs a backup plan to stave off catastrophic warming. Testifying before the British Parliament on November 10, climate scientist Ken Caldeira, a faculty member of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, California, said geo-engineering solutions such as injecting dust into the atmosphere, though risky, may become necessary in future.

Caldeira is asking for more research to evaluate pros and cons of climate engineering. "Science is needed to address critical questions, among them: How effective would various climate engineering proposals be at achieving their climate goals? What unintended outcomes might result? How might these unintended outcomes affect both human and natural systems?" His full statement can be read here (page 99)

Scientists have debated such solutions before (metioned in an earlier blog), which range from wacky to wonderful, but in reality climate change is a true interplay of policy, private markets and technology. A new report , Carbon Finance: Environmental Market Solutions to Climate Change by the Yale Centre for Business and the Enviornment discusses this at length.

According to a 2007 United Nations report, 85 % of the multi-billion dollar investment to address climate change now comes from the private sector, not government. The global carbon market was worth $64 billion in trades in 2007 and is on track to top $100 billion this year. "One recent forecast predicted that the trade would reach $1 trillion annually by 2020, assuming that the United States joins the market with the passage of a cap-and-trade system now being discussed in Congress."

And staying on carbon, did you know that besides Electoral College and popular votes, Obama defeated McCain in carbon footprints as well - emitted 77,894 tons of carbon while McCain trailed at 58,786 tons. Read more about it here.

Share this post: email it! | del.icio.us! | digg it! | newsVine!

Talking, not yelling...

Seema Singh — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 06:06:00 GMT

Will help the politicians reconstruct the global economy using means that we are now left with on the planet. The reference here is, of course, to the "god of growth" and the looming environmental crisis.

Globally, it is financial crisis that has brought environment campaigners together in this week's New Scientist, but locally I think it's politics that will determine climate change agenda as we move closer to state and national elections.

It's either populist measures or complete apathy for issues like climate change (I am not quite comfortable with the term ‘global warming' as the earth is not uniformly heating, some places, eg in Europe and Canada, will have harsher winter) as the election juggernaut rolls in India.

A differing, but scientifically argued, point of view is from Bjorn Lomborg of Copenhagen Consensus who says environmental campaigners almost always present the bad side of climate change, when science, by nature, is not so predictable.

"It is simply not correct that climate data are systematically worse than expected; in many respects, they are spot on, or even better than expected. That we hear otherwise is an indication of the media's addiction to worst-case stories, but that makes a poor foundation for smart policies," he says in this column.

While we need to voice concern, we ought to keep the pitch low. Climate change needs a long-term action plan, something that can be attained by talking, not yelling.

Share this post: email it! | del.icio.us! | digg it! | newsVine!