Scientists in Canada are up in arms over the recent closure of more than a dozen federal science libraries run by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Environment Canada. The closures were mostly completed by last autumn, but hit the headlines last week when pictures of dumpsters full of scientific journals and books began circulating online. Some of facilities that have been closed include the library at the century-old St.
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — THE overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist.
Above image shows IASI methane levels on January 14, 2014, when levels as high as 2329 ppb were recorded. This raises a number of questions. Did these high methane levels originate from releases from the Arctic Ocean, and if so, how could such high methane releases occur from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean at this time of year, when temperatures in the northern hemisphere are falling? Let's first establish where the methane releases occurred that caused these high levels. After all, high methane concentrations are visible at a number of areas, most prominently at three areas, i.e.
In May 2012 the UK Prime minister joined with other G8 leaders in reaffirming their respective national commitments to make their fair contribution to avoiding a 2°C rise in global temperatures (Camp David declaration). That is, the UK has committed to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide, and hence its use of high carbon energy sources, in accordance with the science of climate change (the Copenhagen Accord). This weekend the Prime minister attributed the UK’s recent flooding and damaging weather, and hence at least some of the costs, to climate change.
Canada's carbon emissions will soar 38% by 2030 mainly due to expanding tar sands projects, according to the government's own projections.In a new report to the United Nations, the Harper administration says it expects emissions of 815million tonnes of CO2 in 2030, up from 590Mt in 1990.
The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997. These winds normally push sun-baked water towards Indonesia. When they slackened, the warm water sloshed back towards South America, resulting in a spectacular example of a phenomenon known as El Niño. Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled.
“Today, after two decades of bluff and lies, the remaining 2°C budget demands revolutionary change to the political and economic hegemony.” That was in a blog posting last year by Kevin Anderson, Professor of Energy and Climate Change at Manchester University. One of Britain’s most eminent climate scientists, Anderson is also Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Or, we might take this blunt message, from an interview in November: “We need bottom-up and top-down action.
ExxonMobil's influential global energy report, "The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040", says that new technologies like fracking and tar sands are unlocking a gusher of oil and natural gas. Our ability to extract new sources of fossilized carbon is growing even faster than we can burn them up.