Science Ain't So Bad

RUNNING DRY

A LESS EXTREME CLIMATE (MAYBE)

Scientists in Zurich and in California and in North Carolina have been working to understand what the future holds for us. You’ll be glad to hear it isn’t all bad.

That business about storms getting worse and worse?

It seems  to be wrong. Scientists at ETH Zurich and the California Institute of Technology say their work shows the opposite. As things get hotter, they get more boring and less extreme. The future should have less in the way of  crazy weather variations.

That’s good right?

But Dr.  Anthony Parolari (Duke University) says sales of dehydrated water will be going up out west.

(That’s me, being witty. Don’t go looking for dehydrated water on Amazon. This is just my way of saying that water could get scarce in the western part of the US.)

Parolari says that he and his colleagues have re-run some of their models and have drilled down through some theoretical work and found a surprise. Rather than expecting things to get more and more extreme, they now expect the opposite. Things in the mid latitudes should be less variable and we don’t have to worry about so many fierce cold snaps.

They will come less often, not more often.

No one’s saying things won’t get hot. The warming trend is well established. But the expectation of increasing variation seems – for now, at least – to be off the table.

Here’s the thing. Predicting is part of how science works. If the predictions of a scientist turn out right, this supports the idea that he’s/she’s onto something; it is considered a form (more or less) of evidence. But these are just computer models. They’re only right if the assumptions that went into them are right and the model itself isn’t flawed. We don’t know that.

I wouldn’t move or stay based on a computer model.

Would it hurt to stock up on dehydrated water?

Why not?

– – – – – –

The drawing? That’s mine.

The light bulb that will save us

 LIGHTS THAT DON’T SUCK

Lights use up about a quarter of our electricity; they emit about 10% of all greenhouse gases. Newer LED bulbs, which are gradually replacing incandescents. use way less energy –  about 90% less.

If we replace everything with LEDs, we reduce greenhouse gasses significantly.

President Obama reached a deal with China that’s supposed to start lowering the actual level of greenhouse gases by 2030. New kinds of light bulbs are one way to get those levels down.

Are LED bulbs the best we can do?

You’re not going to believe this but Norihiro Shimoi. from Tohoku, University, has been showing around a new kind of light bulb that makes LED bulbs look like energy pigs. He and his team have a light that’s made from flat nanotube panels. It uses about a tenth the amount of energy as LEDs.

That’s right. a tenth of the energy of LED lights. A hundredth as much as incandescent lights.

The Shimoi light consists of ultra miniaturized nanotube diodes with phosphor screens. Not only are they ridiculously efficient, they can be made with a very low defect rate so they might turn out to be practical to manufacture. Mister ScienceAintSoBad doesn’t know how soon these things can show up on the shelves at competitive prices. For now, it’s all science, no impact.

I’ll keep one eye on these for me and the other for you.

ScienceAintSoBad Rating = FT for Fascinating and Too early to say.

– – – – – –

The drawing is mine.

Turn Off Climate Change

DON’T FREAK, TWEAK

The planet you were born on is in trouble. When we take its temperature, we walk away shaking our heads.  The patient is burning up with a fever.

No matter who’s at fault (some say it’s not us humans), the seas keep rising and the storms keep getting nastier.

What to do?

Getting emissions cut back to neutral is a pipe dream.

And pointing fingers is a waste of time. It’s too late anyway.  The horse is out.

So some are asking if we can’t take a few risks.  What about all that scientific know-how we supposedly have? Could we engineer our way out of this mess? Maybe do something to the oceans so that more carbon gets captured by plankton? Change the clouds so that more sunlight gets reflected? Would  it be ethical to do stuff like that? Could we get all the countries in this huge world to go along with it?

Most of all, would such crazy and unprecedented projects work or would they blow up in our faces?

The Journal Of Climate Change thought this would be the right time to figure it out. Its December issue is a “special”. Twelve papers on the subject of geoengineering.

Maybe getting so many ideas under one cover and so many authors in one room (for a separate conference) could start the process of thrashing out some of the differences. At least, that’s the hope.  Ethicists and political scientists are in the mix. They’re supposed to help the techies to see the bigger picture. These aren’t, after all, exactly backyard experiments. If one or more of them actually gets the go ahead, it would be the first time anyone had the goobers to deliberately tamper with the planet in that way.

If it makes you feel better, a set of guiding principles (the Oxford Principles) has already been worked out to, maybe, guide the hand of future world wide climate experiments.

Just in case.

– – – – – – –

The drawing is my own.

To leave a comment, click “comments” which can be found at the top right of each article just beneath the headline.