 |
|||
 |
" I heard it |
||
December 23, 2009
· What scientists really think about global warming
· You can’t play hoops in Baltimore’s Hoop Village
· Plant scientist’s research makes Top 10 list
· Tomato seeds seen as key to long, healthy life
· Alaska beetle has a natural antifreeze – study
What scientists really think about global warming
(Forbes.com)
– These are hard times for climate scientists who want government action on global
warming. Not only has the
As CBS News put it, the scandal, called "Climategate," is "casting doubts on the very science on which this summit is based." In a widely noted Washington Post column, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin argued, "the documents show that there was no real consensus" among climate scientists. And a new ABC News poll finds that only 29% of the public now place "a lot" of trust in what scientists say about the environment.
The question of whether there is a scientific consensus on human-induced global warming has long inspired heated debate among both scientists and politicians. The most recent assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes global warming as "unequivocal" and "very likely" caused by human activity. But skeptics have argued that the IPCC, which is tasked by the United Nations with evaluating the risks of climate change, is itself influenced by political considerations and "pre-conceived agendas."
In a broader effort to measure scientific opinion, one scholar analyzed peer-reviewed journal articles on climate change and concluded that over 75% supported the notion of anthropogenic (human-induced) warming. But critics argued that the analysis was itself skewed toward finding such a consensus.
So how do you know what scientists really think about global warming? Well, you could always ask them. That's precisely what the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), which I direct, did in 2007 when it hired Harris Interactive to survey American climate scientists. The results won't entirely please either the Climategate correspondents or their critics.
The STATS study polled nearly 500 randomly selected members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union listed in American Men and Women of Science, the longtime "Who's Who" directory of the scientific community. This provided the best glimpse into the views of prominent American scientists with expertise relevant to climate change. We asked them not only whether they thought global warming was occurring, but how severe the effects might be, and how certain they were about making such judgments.
As with all polls, the answers you get depend on the questions you ask. We found that almost all climate scientists believe that the world has been warming: 97% agree that "global average temperatures have increased" during the past century. But not everyone attributes that rise to human activity. A slight majority (52%) believe this warming was human-induced, 30% see it as the result of natural temperature fluctuations and the rest are unsure.
When it comes to current conditions, however, the consensus in favor of human warming reemerges: 84% believe "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring, compared with only 5% who reject this conclusion. And 74% say the "currently available scientific evidence substantiates" its occurrence, while only 9% disagree. So global warming doubters are a genuinely small minority among American climate scientists; it is difficult to believe that any transgressions against scientific procedures or the scientific ethos uncovered by Climategate are going to change that.
Going forward, the more interesting question is how great a danger current warming trends may pose to future generations. The IPCC as well as many environmental organizations have set temperature increases of two degrees Celsius (about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) as a threshold beyond which global warming poses grave dangers to the planet.
We asked the scientists to estimate the probability that human activity will raise global temperatures that much in the next 50 to 100 years. Just over half of these climate experts (56%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that global warming of this magnitude will occur. About one in five (19%) see less than a 50-50 chance, and one in four (26%) are unwilling to venture an opinion.
To get a more general sense of how climate experts feel about the risks of global warming, we asked them to rate the likely effects of climate change during the next 50 to 100 years along a spectrum ranging from "trivial" to "catastrophic." The result was widespread concern, along with considerable debate over how great that concern should be.
Only 13% saw relatively little danger (ratings of 1 to 3 on a 10-point scale); the rest were about evenly split between the 44% who see moderate to high danger (ratings of 4 to 7) and 41% who see very high or grave danger (ratings of 8 to 10). It is also notable that only 1% answered "don't know" to this question, a reminder that many scientists respond more cautiously about making specific scientific projections than about giving their personal opinions, a distinction that is sometimes lost on politicians.
In fact, scientists are often reluctant to rush to judgment, though you wouldn't know it from the mass media, which typically caricature scientific debates as involving two clearly defined, committed and opposed sides. The scientists' actual responses reflect a certain modesty about our capacity to predict the future. For example, when asked to rate the predictability of future climate change along the same 1-to-10 scale, 32% found its effects difficult to predict (ratings of 1 to 3), 51% found them moderately predictable (4 to 7), and only 17% found them easy to predict (8 to 10).
Such reticence reflects a modest appraisal of the scientific community's current understanding of climate change. For example, only 29% express a "great deal of confidence" in science's current understanding of the size and extent of human sources of greenhouse gases, and even fewer (23%) express great confidence in scientific understanding of their natural sources.
This is hardly surprising, in light of the relatively recent origins of this debate. Speculation about global cooling wasn't decisively rejected until the 1980s, and widespread scientific concern over global warming didn't happen until the 1990s. Little wonder that only 5% of the scientists we surveyed describe the study of climate change as a fully mature science--51% call it fairly mature and 39% still see it as an emerging science.
This doesn't mean that we should do nothing about climate change until everyone agrees about the details of its causes and effects. It's time for political leaders to admit that science can inform their policies on climate change but can't dictate them. As Climategate shows, the search for certainty as political cover can backfire. The ABC poll cited above finds that 62% of the American public now see "a lot of disagreement" among scientists as to whether global warming is really happening. Scientific debate is open-ended, but at some point decision-makers must decide--and take responsibility for their decisions.
S. Robert Lichter is professor of
communication at
You can’t play hoops in Baltimore ’s
Hoop Village
(The
Baltimore Sun) – Though it's nearly freezing outside, fresh arugula, kale
and more greens are flourishing in
The structures, finished in October, are already yielding
harvests that will provide wholesome snacks to some city elementary students
this winter. And students at the three
"I love my vegetables," Michelle Simpson, a Heritage High School senior, said Wednesday as she proudly showed visitors the kale and cabbage she helped plant. Inside the greenhouses, it's a balmy 20 degrees warmer, with neat rows of lush kohlrabi, radish, Swiss chard, lettuce and spinach. About 1,000 tulip bulbs await spring, tucked into the rich soil of other rows.
The hoop village's builders and supporters gathered to
celebrate its first crops, sampling sweet potato soup laced with collard
greens, plus kale and mixed green salad. They talked of their vision to provide
"green" jobs to youngsters while also supplying the
The portable greenhouses are a joint project of two local nonprofits, Safe Healing Foundation and Civic Works, with funding from the state and city, as well as several foundations and individuals.
"It's great that food can come out of here and go
straight into our cafeterias. Our young people are learning that food does not
just come out of a can," said Nzinga Oneferua-El, the foundation's executive director and head
of the
Oneferua-El said the idea for the
village grew out of her quest five years ago for a place to raise the raw
materials used in classes on floral design, wreath-making and the like. She
originally wanted to repair the old, dilapidated greenhouse at
The steel-framed, plastic-clad houses were erected with help
from the
"They showed us how to bend the hoops and the whole shebang," said John Ciekot, project director for Civic Works, the city's urban service corps.
Along the way, the project grew in scale and ambition. Civic
Works, through its Real Food Farm operation, hopes to raise 150,000 pounds of
fruits and vegetables annually to serve the low-income communities around
Beyond improving urban diets, the project aims to provide jobs in the greenhouses to local youths and adults, while also teaching them skills in agriculture, horticulture and marketing.
"We all know the drug business is accessible here," noted Ciekot. "Well, food-raising is accessible, too. They have another career path they can take."
Organizers hope eventually to build 20 hoop houses in
Tony Geraci, food service director
for
"Our goal is to have one of these at every school," he said. "We want to create jobs and bring real food to a region that doesn't have access to it."
As the harvest begins for
"Whether run by nonprofit organizations like ours or by
for-profit businesses," he said, "
Plant scientist’s research makes Top 10 list
(UC Riverside) RIVERSIDE, Calif. – Research contribution by Sean Cutler,
a young scientist at the University of California, Riverside has been named by Science
magazine as one of the top 10 breakthroughs of the year.
In April 2009, Cutler showed how abscisic acid (
The openness with which Cutler, an assistant professor of plant cell biology in
the Department of Botany and Plant
Sciences, shared information with other scientists in his highly
competitive field of plant cell biology led, in just months, to six research
papers in journals like Science and Nature that were authored by
collaborator and other labs working in the field.
Today, because of Cutler’s significant contribution to finding
Read about Cutler’s research here.
Read here
about how his work spawned intense interest among plant scientists to nail down
how exactly plants and crops survive drought.
“I believe Sean’s discovery is the most significant finding in plant biology
this year and will have profound effects on agriculture worldwide,” said
Natasha Raikhel, the director of UC Riverside’s Center for Plant Cell Biology, of which
Cutler is a member.
Science magazine tapped the discovery of Ardipithecus
ramidus, the 4.4 million year old creature that
may be a human ancestor, as the most important scientific breakthrough this
year. Team leader Tim D. White earned his undergraduate degrees in anthropology
and biology at UCR in 1972.
Tomato seeds seen as key to long, healthy life
(Mail Online) – A natural ingredient found in tomato seeds has been identified by British scientists as a key component to a long and healthy life.
The gel prevents the blood from becoming sticky and clotting and so is being promoted as a natural alternative to aspirin.
It was discovered by food researchers investigating the benefits of a Mediterranean diet.
Patented as Fruitflow, it is already being used in one fruit juice product and is now expected to be added to dairy drinks, spreads and other foods.
EU health watchdogs have accepted thatthe ingredient does improve blood flow and have approved the use of such claims on packaging.
Fruitflow was discovered in 1999
by Professor Asim Dutta-Roy
at the Rowett Institute in
It is derived from the gel around tomato seeds. Clinical trials have shown it can help maintain a healthy blood circulation by preventing the clumping of blood platelets which can lead to clots.
Both Fruitflow and aspirin work by changing the characteristics of platelets, which are tiny cells in the blood. Normally they are smooth, but inflammation in the blood vessels - linked to smoking, high cholesterol and stress - causes them to become spiky and so stick together, forming clots.
Aspirin strongly blocks one set of signals that causes this to happen. Fruitflow more gently damps down three others, enough to reduce the risk of clotting.
Currently, millions of older people take small doses of aspirin daily to improve blood flow.
However this can have unwelcome side effects such as bleeding in the stomach and the creation of ulcers. Professor-Dutta-Roy said: 'To date, no side effects have been demonstrated during the development of Fruitflow.'
Research shows that a smoother blood flow can be seen within three hours of taking Fruitflow and the results can last up to 18 hours, making it ideal for daily consumption.
The gel, which is colourless and tasteless, is extracted from tomato seeds and can then be added to a range of foods without changing their characteristics.
It is currently added to Sirco, a range of 100 per cent pure fruit juices available from Waitrose, Ocado and some health food shops.
Alaska
(newsminer.com)
Six years later, quite a bit has changed.
The University of Notre Dame student’s research on Upis ceramboides, known commonly as the darkling beetle, determined the species contains a previously unknown type of biological antifreeze.
The discovery could potentially change the future of agriculture, medicine and food preservation.
Walters and two other Notre Dame researchers worked with
The new antifreeze molecule consists of sugar and fat, unlike other biological antifreezes that are made of sugar and protein.
Barnes, the director of the UAF Institute of Arctic Biology, said protein-based molecules form ice crystals inside cell membranes, which damages the cells.
It’s possible the newly discovered molecule has fatty acids that prevent internal ice crystal formation.
The antifreeze molecule is among the adaptations that helps the darkling beetle survive harsh winters in Interior forests. The beetle doesn’t freeze until about minus
18.5 degrees Fahrenheit and is able to survive temperatures as low as 104 degrees below zero.
Barnes cautioned that more research needs to be done, but he said the newly discovered molecule potentially could be used for a range of other areas. Such an antifreeze could help genetically modified crops resist frost or even prevent freezer burn in products such as ice cream. Organ transplants could be aided by a method of cooling that doesn’t form damaging ice crystals.
“If this new antifreeze functions that way and could be engineered into human tissues and organs, it increases the possibility of freezing donor organs for prolonged shelf life,” Barnes stated in an e-mail.
Walters’ discovery came through several fortunate
coincidences. His adviser at Notre Dame, Jack Duman,
has studied freeze-tolerant insects in
When he began his doctoral studies, Walters decided to
pursue the same research. Walters said he selected the Upis
ceramboides beetle for study largely because
The biological antifreeze is only present in low concentrations, which probably is one of the reasons it previously went undetected. For quite a while, Walters said he was confused by the results because known types of biological chemistry couldn’t explain the effect.
“It took me a long time to figure it out,” he said. “I really struggled with it.”
Barnes said researchers are hoping to get funding from the National Science Foundation to study whether other freeze-tolerant animals have the same type of natural antifreeze. Barnes said “many difficult studies ahead” are needed to find out how the antifreeze works and where in the cell it is located.
“I personally believe that it’s likely common in other organisms and it just hasn’t been looked for,” Walters said.
Walters, who earned his doctorate in July, said the antifreeze discovery was an unexpectedly sweet revelation toward the end of his project.
“All in all, I’d say it’s not a bad way to go out,” Walters said with a chuckle.
End Transmission