It’s published on-line here. What is so dispiriting is that this problem–a deal breaker for humans on this planet–became so politicized. For an apt parallel, go back to how Lysenko’s views about evolution became part of the political ideology of Communist Russia early in the last century.
Here’s the story in Time Magazine. I took this photo of a similarly sized iceberg off Fogo in Newfoundland. The difference? The one in my photo is about 20 km from my camera. They are huge of course. As the ice breaks up in the Arctic, more of these will be moving south down the Chanel between Labrador and Greenland. How will that change the dynamics of the Atlantic Ocean? Well, there is this report by Rasmus Pedersen. Money quote:
These characteristics mean that sea ice loss initiates feedbacks that contribute directly to Arctic amplification of near-surface warming (Serreze et al. 2009; Screen and Simmonds 2010; Serreze and Barry 2011).
Martin Wolf’s really cogent FT op ed is here. For loyal readers who can’t get behind the FT firewall, the gist is that investors would be smart to discount the value of oil reserves based on the possibility that they may eventually be ‘stranded assets’ as a result of Climate Change policies.
For loyal readers who look to the raw data, here [pdf] are the proposed EPA regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
Nationwide, by 2030, this rule would achieve CO2 emission
reductions from the power sector of approximately 30 percent
from CO2 emission levels in 2005. This goal is achievable because
innovations in the production, distribution and use of
electricity are already making the power sector more efficient
and sustainable while maintaining an affordable, reliable and
diverse energy mix.
There are a lot of questions of course. First, can the President get this out of Congress? Second, to what extent does this represent new money (rather than re-labeled dollars)? Third, how much of the $1B would go towards climate science?
Story here. Short version: Monsanto just invested $1B in Climate Corporation and the purchase raises interesting questions.
You can now track the daily CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, otherwise known as the Keeling curve, here.
Marcott et. al in Science Magazine, here. Here’s the figure that worries me (hat tip to Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish):
The famed hockey stick is scrunched and labeled “previous timeframe”. As is clear, what’s been happening very recently is not only large….its derivative (rate of change) is also large. Adaptation take time….
Hat tip Tyler Cowen, the link is here. It’s being published by Springer, and…it will be free for students in developing countries. Pfaff is a giant in the field, this is a worthy contribution.
In the meantime, here’s hoping that we science helps us make it through 2012 more or less intact.
Happy New Year!