ebmgh.com

There has been a lot of vocal complaining from the right-wing, climate denialists about some small errors and inconsistencies in the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. Scant attention has been given to significant underestimates of some impacts in the 2007 report. You don’t have to delve far into the literature on sea level rise to find that many experts find the IPCC’s estimate of 20 – 60 cm rise by centuries end to be much too low.

This article at the website Real Climate titled Sealevelgate neatly summarizes the controversy. It is by Stefan Rahmstorf, an oceanographer at the University of Potsdam in Germany.

Let me propose this maxim:

For every overstatement of man’s impact on the earth’s climate by the IPCC, there is an equal and opposite understatement of some other impact.

The Daily Press, a newspaper in Newport News, Virginia, interviewed John Rummel, director of the Institute for Coastal Science and Policy at East Carolina University, who described sea-level rise and growing coastal populations as a “unique train wreck.”

Rummel describes the escalating costs of repairing or replacing storm damaged infrastructure in the Outer Banks, a 200-mile (320-km) long string of narrow barrier islands off the coast of North Carolina, is escalating. Why do communities spend millions to rebuild, when they must know another disaster is not only inevitable, but becomes more likely each year? “There is too much money invested in coastal properties, which are an important source of tax revenue, to retreat from them, he said.” He goes on to suggest, “localities should consider low-impact uses, such as eco-tourism, as opposed to heavy infrastructure.”

A couple more choice quotes from the article:

“It’s going to take a couple of disasters to make people think about this.”

“We can’t stop the sea but we can have it work for us.”

(Via the Sea Level Rise Foundation Google Group)

From the New York Times:

Many streams and rivers in the United States are getting warmer, with the greatest increases in urbanized areas, according to research to be published in an upcoming edition of the journal Frontiers of the Ecology and the Environment.

Twenty major streams and rivers, including the Colorado, Potomac, Delaware and Hudson Rivers, are warming at statistically significant rates, the study found.

Increases in water temperature were often directly correlated to increases in air temperature and high levels of urbanization, said Sujay Kaushal, the paper’s lead author and a professor at University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science.

“We found the most rapid rates of increase in urban areas — this may be related to ‘urban heat island effects,’ from buildings, parking lots and pavements,” he said.

Not surprising. No discussion of thermal discharges in the NYT article, I wonder if they are covered in the journal article. The articles in this journal, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, look genuinely interesting. Too bad the articles are so expensive. You can’t even view the abstract for free. Update: Thanks to Peter at ESA, who points out that the abstract is here.

Sometime in the last year, I noticed my clothes getting a little tight. At one point, I tipped the scales at around 188. Yikes, that’s about 20–25 lb more than I ought to be, and a lot more than April 2006: I weighed 153 the day I ran Boston Marathon in 3 hours and 16 minutes. (Admittedly, that was pretty thin for me, and even though I was eating everything in sight, I was running 50+ miles per week, including speed work and hill training.) Last year wasn’t so great for my fitness, or for my physique. Two different bike accidents (each causing broken bones) kept me pretty inactive. And I’ve gotten in the habit of having a glass (or two, or three) of beer or wine nearly every night. And my fiancée is a fantastic cook, and appreciates sweets almost as much as I do.

I may have scoffed at others’ New Years’ resolutions in the past, but this year I was determined to lose weight in the new year. The excess pounds are starting to affect the way I feel about myself, a bunch of my clothes are un-wearably snug, and now that I’m getting back to running and cycling, I curse every extra pound that I have to lug up a steep hill. At the beginning of April, I weighed in. Four months into the year, and what did I have to show for it? Nada. Zilch. Still hovering around 185. Clearly this calls for more drastic action.

Inspired in part by a book I read recently, Predictably Irrational, I’ve decided to bring the power of economics to bear on the problem. I have decided that I shall lose 5 lbs per month for the next three months, or pay $100 to some cause that I don’t want to support. If I do make my goal, I get to spend $100 on something nice for myself.

What is a cause that is sufficiently abhorrent to me? The Campaign to Elect Meg Whitman (a republican running for governor of California), or perhaps to Sarah Palin (she must have a fund that is accepting donations, right?). Some anti-abortion group somewhere, or the scum that bankrolled Prop 8 a couple of years ago, banning gay marriage in California?

Ultimately, I decided that I can’t and won’t give to a cause that will make the world more evil. Then, I had the perfect idea: a few years after a president’s term ends, they start building their library and asking for donations. In case you couldn’t guess, I’m no fan of Bush #2. Contributing to the George W. Bush Library seems like an incredible waste of money. Doesn’t it help perpetuate the legacy of the worst president in American history? Perhaps, but it’s probably not going to make the world measurably more evil.

Will it? What’s the worse that could happen? Some scholar goes to the library and reads more evidence on how W trashed the country for 8 years. Besides, these days, Bush is flying to Haiti with Bill Clinton and raising money for earthquake relief. He’s actually doing something selfless and useful. Too bad he waited until he was out of office to do so.

Here it is: the George W. Bush Presidential Center, Library, Policy Institute and Foundation will be built on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Now accepting donations! “When you contribute $50 or more, your name will also be included in the Freedom Registry on permanent display at the Center!” Argh, can I imagine a worse fate than having my name recorded in perpetuity as a supporter of W? Nope. So, it’s on.

So, after one week, I’m doing great. After hovering around 185 for about 6 months, I’ve dropped 3-4 lbs in about 10 days. I’ve been working out every day, and eating tons of fruit and veg, and avoiding alcoholic drinks on school nights. I’m not steering clear of sweets (c’mon, I gotta live), but instead eating much smaller quantities. Yes, you have to be constantly mindful. Yes, there are a zillion temptations every day. Just walking to work from the subway stop takes me past donuts, muffins, scones, pizza, fried chicken, etc. I’ve started walking a different route so I don’t have to even deal with it. The thought of donating money to Bush is so appalling that it outstrips the pleasure of noshing an apple fritter with my morning coffee.

Weight loss chart for April 2010

Here’s a chart that I’ll update now and then. The first two measurements are from the scale at my gym; I’ve put error bars around these measurements because the scale is hard to read, and I have doubts about its accuracy. The latest measurements are from a Tanita-brand scale I bought this week. It includes your body fat percentage. I’m at 23.5%. That means I’m “over-fat”! Thanks, new scale. I love you too.

Proof that I’m serious. This is stuck to the fridge:

Check to the George W. Bush Foundation that I hope not to send

This is extremely pertinent to the ongoing debate about whether to allow the Chevron refinery in Richmond to expand.

Toxics from the Chevron oil refinery were found in the indoor air of homes in Richmond, California, according to a peer-reviewed study in American Journal of Public Health. The results are being released as the EPA considers measures to reduce pollution from refineries nationwide, and as Chevron is appealing a court decision barring the expansion of one of the nation’s largest refineries in Richmond, California.

Researchers tested samples of indoor and outdoor air for over 150 chemicals in 40 homes in Richmond, California (low-income, predominantly minority neighborhoods bordering a Chevron oil refinery, marine shipping corridors and other polluters), and 10 homes in Bolinas, CA (a non-industrial comparison community). The air indoors, where Americans spend 90 percent of their time, was more polluted than the air outdoors in both communities, with 104 toxics detected inside Richmond homes and 69 in Bolinas.

Eighty compounds were detected outdoors in Richmond and 60 in Bolinas; Richmond concentrations were generally higher. Richmond’s vanadium and nickel levels indicated effects of heavy oil combustion from oil refining and shipping; these levels were among the state’s highest. In nearly half of Richmond homes, PM2.5 exceeded California’s annual ambient air quality standard. Paired outdoor–indoor measurements were significantly correlated for industry- and traffic-related PM2.5, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, elemental carbon, metals, and sulfates (r = 0.54–0.92, P < .001).

Indoor air quality is an important indicator of the cumulative impact of outdoor emissions in fence-line communities. Policies based on outdoor monitoring alone add to environmental injustice concerns in communities that host polluters. Community-based participatory exposure research can contribute to science and stimulate and inform action on the part of community residents and policymakers.

Click here for the entire press release, and see Download or read online for free here:

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/S3/S600

From the California Bicycle Coalition:

CBC has amended its bill to protect bicyclists and pedestrians by extending protections to all roadway users and toughening penalties.

Assembly Bill 1951, authored by San Francisco Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, would turn injury-causing traffic infractions into misdemeanors and increase existing penalties. The bill is the centerpiece of CBC’s 2010 legislative agenda.

Ammiano amended the bill last week after the California District Attorneys Association promised to fight an earlier version of the bill that would have created a new class of traffic penalties specifically for injuring bicyclists, pedestrians and other road users who are particularly vulnerable in motor vehicle collisions. As amended, AB 1951 addresses all victims of injury-causing collisions, including other motorists.

AB 1951 would set the minimum base fine at $145, equal to the base fine for misdemeanor reckless driving without injury, and also impose a jail sentence.

By treating such offenses as misdemeanors, the bill would ensure that more injury collisions are reviewed in court, eliminating some problems caused by limited enforcement. Collisions that injure bicyclists, pedestrians and other vulnerable road users routinely go unpunished when law enforcement officers are unable to cite motorists due to insufficient information about the motorist’s intent.

In 2009 a longtime Marin County bicyclist suffered a shattered clavicle, two broken ribs and other injuries requiring surgery when he was struck by a minivan whose uninsured driver didn’t stop after hitting him. The motorist later turned herself in to local police, who found her at fault but did not cite her. The investigating officer told the victim he’d handled more than 100 bike-car collisions in Marin County without ever citing a motorist.

CBC hopes to add traffic school and community service as penalties so that careless drivers learn about how to share the road safely. AB 1951 would not affect penalties for reckless or negligent driving, including driving under the influence.

I think this is a step in the right direction. Every time I read about a cyclist or a pedestrian that is injured or killed by a careless driver, I wonder, “Where is the outrage?” In January of 2009, when a 81-year old San Francisco woman was walking in the crosswalk, and was killed by a driver, a San Francisco police sergeant actually said to the Chronicle, “There’s no crime here at all.”

Whenever there’s an accident, there are two sides to the story. Is it a coincidence that it is usually the driver’s story that is given more credence? Especially when the cyclist or pedestrian is in the back of an ambulance on the way to the ER or the morgue?

I think this bill is a step in the right direction. IT does not seem as powerful or far-reaching as Oregon’s Vulnerable Road User’s Law, passed in 2007, which “creates enhanced penalties for drivers that kill or seriously injure a vulnerable user (anyone not enclosed in a vehicle) and are convicted of Careless Driving.” That just makes sense to me. The more vulnerable the road user, the more careful you should be around them.

Full text of the bill and more information at here at legislature.ca.gov. Sign up for news and updates at calbike.org.

From Africa News, via the Sea Level Rise Google Group:

It is stipulated that about 10,000 settlements in some parts of the greater Banjul area including the capital city could be affected by the climate change problems associated to violent storms, sea level rise, flooding. The effects would be at its peak during the period of rainy season making the environment inhabitable in the long run; this could only be averted by maintaining and protecting the Tambi wetland which is situated between Western Region and the greater Banjul area.

According to Mr. Kawsu Jammeh, an Environmental Education officer under Department of Parks and Wildlife,

“ Banjul is one meter below sea level which means that the area is vulnerable to the climate change disasters and as matter of fact over 10,000 compounds which are located in on no escaped areas therefore any sea level rise or seasonal flooding could be detrimental to such inhabitants, the best way to mitigate or adapt these problems is to maintain the Tambi Wetland complex as it is and relocate all the communities in the greater Banjul are since in 20 years time the place will be inhabitable due the climate change”.

Mr. Jammeh appears to agree with Will Travis, here in the SF Bay Area, who tells anyone who will listen, “Wetlands are as close to magic as you can get when it comes to dealing with climate change.”

Here is a map of the wetlands on the edge of Gambia’s capital. According to wikipedia, the Tanbi wetland complex is a protected area created in 2001. What is left of them looks wonderful, but you can see how the city has crowded right up to their edge.

View Larger Map