Metro Environmental Blog

Thiele Should Look In Mirror, Not Blame Others About Stony Brook Southampton Closing

2010-04-09T08:55:00.003-04:00

Sad news this week as Stony Brook University announced that they would be reducing service to their Southampton Campus, effectively ending student residences on campus and destroying the fragile community that faculty, students and administrators have worked so hard to build over the past three years. I know of what I speak firsthand as Southampton hired me for my first real teaching gig, teaching a class called “Environmental Problems and Solutions” in the Spring of 2008. There has been a lot of coverage of the issue via the New York Times, 27east.com and the Sag Harbor Times.

Unfortunately this is a story that is repeating itself over and over again over the entire country as the economy suffers. State and local officials grappling with tough decisions about which worthwhile and valuable services to cut, to avoid crippling budget deficits and states and municipalities going bankrupt. The only problem is, in this case that this campus closure is not forced by a crumbling economy, but by extremely poor government policy in Albany.

The State University of New York (SUNY) is one of a very few institutions of higher learning in the United States to have their tuition set not by the University Trustees or Administrators but rather by a legislative body. Traditionally every 5 or so years when the state legislature bothers to think about it, lawmakers review tuition and vote to increase it as a function of inflation or other economic pressures. This occurred last year during the academic year, the legislature voted to increase tuition midway through the year. This caused students who had budgeted for tuition some duress – but this was not the real crime of the bill. Instead the real crime of the bill was that the increase in tuition did NOT go to the SUNY system, but instead went to the state’s general fund. Students were not paying for education, they were paying to cover other expenses the state had incurred.

Let me say this again. The legislature increased tuition to pay for other programs. The legislature taxed students to pay for their pork. Why? Because lawmakers are terrified to increase taxes to pay for the programs they fund. Instead they increase fees at state agencies (e.g. vehicle registration, recreational fishing permits) and pocket the money to pay for other projects. Brilliant!

So SUNY came up with a plan that they hope to convince lawmakers and the governor of. Allow SUNY trustees to set tuition and keep the tuition inside of SUNY for distribution. Some campuses could have a higher tuition, and some campuses could have a lower tuition based on what services they provide and the level of education granted. What do lawmakers like State Assemblyman Fred Thiele think of this plan?

The second problem is that the campus is caught in what Thiele called “Albany politics.”

The state university system, he said, wants to offer different tuition rates at different schools, and it wants to set those rates without any oversight.

“The legislature is leery of that,” said Thiele.

Of course the legislature is leery of that! How else will they continue to pass along their increased spending to taxpayers without actually doing the politically unpopular, but responsible action of raising taxes. Responsibility, that is something the legislature is truly leery of. Instead they just pass the expense onto college students.

The closure of Southampton Campus is expected to save Stony Brook $6 million annually. If SUNY had been able to use the funds generated by increasing tuition, would this closure be necessary? Enrollment at Southampton is up – way up – perhaps with the funds from the tuition increase the State could have kept Southampton open long enough to build up a program that could break even. Instead $55 million that has been spent improving the campus is going to waste.

So Fred Thiele, instead of blaming others, take action. Vote to keep all tuition money paid by students in the SUNY system. Then vote to make sure in the future lawmakers can’t steal from the SUNY cookie jar again, allow trustees to set tuition levels. Lastly, take responsibility to the fact that it is policy enacted under your watch that caused Southampton to be closed. Don’t pass the buck.

Why So Hot, So Soon?

2010-04-08T09:56:00.003-04:00

It happens every spring. Early in the season, before the trees have grown leaves and the flowers in bloom, there is always a hot dry day. Temperatures push 90 in the New York Metro region, perhaps a week or two after a cool, damp day where the temperatures don’t get out of the 40’s. For us this year, it was yesterday Wednesday April 7. The map below shows temperatures at 4pm yesterday:

Newark and Hartford have exceeded 90 and unofficial reports from Orange County suggested temperatures of 94! But why and how? Well it has to do with trees, or in this case a lack there of.

Trees do two things that tend to reduce surface temperatures, first they reflect radiation and shade the surface and secondly they are a driver in evapo-transpiration. Let me explain.

Trees, when they have leaves and are photosynthesizing, draw moisture out of the soil and release it to the atmosphere when their stomata are open and they are pulling in CO2 (go-go introduction to biology!). In effect they act to moisten atmosphere when the sun is up. In much of the solar radiation (sunlight) that would go into heating the surface instead heats the water in the atmosphere. This is the same reason that the deserts in northern Africa are hotter than the rainforests at the equator, even though the rainforests receive more sunlight. Overall trees keep temperatures down, and increase the humidity.

So if we had had Tuesday’s weather, sometime in May when the trees were fully deployed – temperatures would have been much milder, perhaps with highs in the lower 80’s - even the sun being higher and stronger in the sky!

Another interesting effect to note on the above temperature map is the influence of the cold ocean on air temperatures. With water temperatures still below 50 in many places, when the wind blows off the ocean it acts to cool costal locations. That is why Long Island showed temperatures in the 60’s and 70’s while Newark burned up in the 90’s.

Interesting weather day in the New York Metro Region.

Fuel Cell Power?

2010-02-22T14:45:00.002-05:00

This could be the next big step for clean energy. The piece talks about the technological and economical hurdles for this fuel cell to clear. But to me, the biggest hurdle is the gas that powers the cell. If it really uses methane, then we as a society would need a way to generate methane cleanly.

Five Burning Questions facing the Yankees

2010-02-19T11:32:00.001-05:00

I thought that this was a great idea, so I thought I'd try it out.

Five Burning Questions facing the Yankees
by Owen Doherty

1. Can Alex Rodriquez stay healthy?
Whether they'll admit it or not, the Yankees clearly missed Alex Rodriquez last season. When healthy, he's the child that walks the parrot. Unfortunately, he's not healthy often, and his prolonged absences make Titanic seem short by comparison. Fortunately, he's making an effort to correct the problem.

"I spent the offseason working with a gym teacher to strengthen my hip," he said. "But after a few days of that, my elbow started to bother me, so now I'm just taking it easy and seeing what happens."

2. Can Derek Jeter remain productive?
Unfortunately for the Yankees, Derek Jeter isn't getting any younger, and is hoping to squeeze one more productive season out of his shoulder before calling it a career. At 27 years old, he knows his inevitable eventual decline is the dolphin in the toilet, but he cautions doubters who think he's too old to contribute:
"After spending the offseason golfing with Strom Thurman, I'm in the best shape of my life," he said. "Now, where'd I leave my snow shovel?"

3. Can Brett Gardiner rebound from a tough 2009?
When Brett Gardiner is on, he shows flashes of brilliance the team has been hoping for since he burst onto the scene in 2008. Unfortunately, he's never been able to put it all together, and Tony Pena Sr. will spend the spring working with him to improve his fielding.

"I think this could be the year he really comes together as a player," coach said. "But then again, I also thought I had a shot with that truck driver from interstate highway."

4) Is Curtis Granderson the answer?
Last season's events and the offseason that followed left the team with an empty spot in the roster, and they filled it by acquiring Curtis Granderson. Team officials are excited about the charisma he'll bring to the team.

"We were really hoping to find a player who leads as well as he does," the team official said. "We think he can be the coconut that pushes us over the top."

5. Will the team be forced to deal Mariano Rivera?
The team remains hopeful in their negotiations with Mariano Rivera, but no deal is in place, creating uncertainty about the future of one of the team's brightest stars. He said he's not going to allow his situation to distract him from the task at hand.

"I'm just trying to play my game and let the cash money resolve itself," he said. "But I hope it happens soon, because I've got my eye on a nice mail order bride."

49 States Isn't Bad

2010-02-13T13:32:00.003-05:00

Just a quick update to yesterday's snow related post. Evidently the snow cover on the volcanic mountains of Hawaii melted -- so only 49 of the 50 states in the Union have snow cover at the present. See below for the map:

Evidently the news media has picked up on this story.

Patrick Marsh who, like myself, is aiming for a doctorate in meteorology is trying to find photographic evidence of all of this snow fall. Check out his blog for more information.

Snowfall in all 50 States

2010-02-12T15:55:00.005-05:00

Well it's official (almost) there is snow on the ground in all 50 states. Snow has been reported this hour at two sites in the panhandle of Florida (near Crestview, FL). This snowfall is associated with the system that dumped nearly a foot of snow in Dallas, TX before racing across Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Heavy snow is being reported intermittently across Georgia and southern Alabama, amid a larger region of moderate snow. Snow in the south coupled with the coastal storms that have pummeled the mid-Atlantic region means that there is likely snow on the ground in all 50 states at the same time. This is, needless to say, quite rare.

The image below shows a satellite derived computer estimate of snow cover as of last night (Thursday into Friday) around 2am. Snow has since overspread Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina -- meaning that assuming there is some documentation of snow on the ground in Florida, all 50 states (including Hawaii) will have snow on the ground.

Still waiting for some good graphics, before I write up a little something on the "blizzard that wasn't" that affected the Mid-Atlantic and Southern New England earlier this week. Enjoy your weekend everyone.

Below: a radar image showing the snow currently affecting the southeast. The rain snow line runs nearly through the triple point between Florida, Alabama and Georgia, then runs NE just south of Albany, GA then continuing NE to about 50 miles south of Columbia, SC.

Snowfall Shifted to Coast This Season

2010-02-11T09:13:00.006-05:00

It's been a weird year in terms of snow in the New York Metropolitan Region. Coastal regions, including Long Island, southern Connecticut, New York City and coastal New Jersey have been hammered with snow. Inland regions, like the Hudson Valley have generally seen less snowfall accumulation. The majority of snow has fallen in two large snow storms, the blizzard that came through late in December and the large storm that passed through just yesterday (more on this storm tomorrow). Both of these storms passed out at sea, and precipitation was heaviest near the coast. This snowfall pattern is atypical. The map below shows the annual mean snowfall over the New York Metro Region.

In general snowfall follows topography -- with higher amounts falling in higher elevations inland, away from the (generally) warmer ocean. New York City averages near 25" a year. Long Island averages between 20" near the south shore and 30" near the north shore. There is a steep gradient in the lower Hudson Valley with locations nearest to Long Island Sound and New York City receiving 30" a snow per year, while locations just inland like Northern Westchester receive upwards of 45" per year on average.

The reason for the gradient as seen above is temperature. Locations nearest to the ocean are usually the warmest, and when the wind blows off the ocean temperatures tend to creep above the freezing mark of 32 F. This season, that has not been the case. Storms have passed further to the south and east allowing nearly all of the region to stay below freezing. Instead this season areas closest to the storm have received the most snowfall -- yielding high snow totals near the ocean. The map below shows the snowfall for the December 18 - 21 Blizzard. As you can see snowfall is maximized near the shoreline, nearest to the storm. Temperature was not an issue in this storm, allowing for high snowfall near the coast.

With more snow in the forecast for early next week, will the interior sections begin to make up their deficiency in snow? Will the heating power of the ocean change the snow to rain along the coast? Or, will this storm follow the track of other systems and dump heavy amounts of snow along coastal locations leaving those snow fans inland wondering where there snow has gone?

Tickle Me Elmo

2009-11-24T09:50:00.003-05:00

President Obama announced an initiative to recognize the achievements of scientists and engineers, where an annual science fair will be held at the White House. I mean that's great, finally scientists getting some recognition for their achievements. But what got me was the picture that accompanied the article. Elmo is evidently the spokesperson for science and engineering in America. Terrific. We're taking science very seriously here folks.

Get off my damn lawn!

2009-10-21T14:55:00.006-04:00

I have a great idea for a blog that would no doubt be much more popular than this blog. The content of the blog would just be professors and teachers posting e-mails they get from students. Because frankly the e-mails that I have gotten from students are so lacking in etiquette that they are almost funny. There is almost never a salutation, no "Dear Professor X" or no "Dear Sir" or anything like that. No greeting. Then there is usually no signature, or no ending to the e-mail. The words just stop. And often there is no actual request. Just a statement or comment that its left to you as the course instructor to figure out the question. For example:

I can't find where the HW folder is located. I looked under assignments and it's empty.

Thanks,
[name redacted]

Awesome! But what of it? Do you want to know where the homework is? Or are you just letting me know that there is no homework in the assignment folder?

I also enjoyed this one:

the power point is saved as .pptx it need to be re saved as .ppt or it wont convert for mac computers.... please resave as.ppt

Note that there is no salutation and no proper ending to the e-mail. Who sent this? And I love the statement "it need to be re saved" so instead of the student installing the patch that converts .pptx to .ppt, the instructor needs to re-save all of the powerpoint files. What a sense of entitlement! How about you show up to class and take notes!

I think this is the first sign of me getting old and crotchety, but I really can't stand e-mails that lack any semblance of etiquette.

Open Space on Long Island

2009-04-22T09:55:00.006-04:00

Above: New York's pre-eminent open space, the Fulton Lakes Chain in the Adirondacks.

WSHU had an interesting story about open space on Long Island, and why we should care about it:

http://www.wshu.org/news/story.php?ID=6692

The report mentions that Suffolk County is buying up farm land to preserve as open space. More such open space would have been persevered if the Open Space proposal hadn't been defeated by voters this past fall.

New Yankee Stadium Home Runs Not Necessarily Related to Weather

2009-04-21T12:58:00.008-04:00

Yesterday AccuWeather via their blog put forth a hypothesis that the well documented increase in home runs at the new Yankee Stadium was due to a change in the stadium’s shape, allowing for west winds to enter and exit the stadium at a high speed and the proper angle to turn lazy fly balls into home runs. More specifically:

The wind on Saturday during the Yankees' 22-4 loss against the Cleveland Indians was mostly from the west at 15-20 mph. Given the layout of the stadium, the wind could have had an effect on fly balls in right field. Six home runs were hit by the Indians in the second inning alone.

Although the field dimensions of the new stadium are exactly that of the old stadium, the shell of the new stadium is shaped differently. AccuWeather.com meteorologists also estimate that the angle of the seating tiers in the new stadium could have a different effect on wind motion across the field.

Note the lack of scientific explanation for the statements in the article. Notice how many times words like mostly, could, estimate are used in the paragraphs. No modeling, or observational studies were used. Let me translate that for you into plain English, “hey we watched the game on Fox on Saturday and it sure looked like the wind was blowing the ball hard, maybe it’s the new stadium?” Look it seems like a reasonable hypothesis and all, especially watching some of those pop flies end up as home runs on Saturday, but it’s just a theory and the accuweather story struck me as being less science and more guessing. I was frustrated that a weather company would present this theory with only one games worth of wind data as as motivating observation.

So I wanted to test their theory with a bit of weather data to see if it holds any water. The methods are explained below and the study includes only six games the four versus the Indians this past weekend and two exhibition games versus the Cubs in early April. The chart shows the number of home runs hit each game, the mean direction of the wind and the wind speed. First note, only three of the six games hosted at Yankee Stadium so far had a west wind. So three of the games played so far had winds not out of the west, and often out of the opposite direction (east), which would by the accuweather theory suppress home runs. In each of these games where the wind was not out of the west, 3 home runs were hit.

Table 1. The above table shows the average wind direction, and speed for games at Yankee Stadium so far in 2009. See the methods section below for details.

During games with a west wind, 8, 6 and 5 home runs were hit, each a significant amount of home runs for a MLB game. But might these home runs be due to the players involved in the game and not the weather? I’m not a saberatician so excuse my clumsy attempt to convince you that there is just as good a chance that the HR’s were due to good offences hitting against struggling pitching as there is a chance that the wind was directly responsible for the home runs. Cleveland lead the American League in runs scored after the all-star break last year and is #2 in runs scored in this young season. During the west wind games this high powered offense was coupled with some exceptionally poor pitching. Of those three games with a west wind, two of them were started by Chien Ming Wang who has for a lack of a better word been awful both at Yankee Stadium and away so far this year. Other pitchers starting in these high home run games were Fausto Carmona (5.85 ERA in 2008, 7.87 ERA in 2009) served up 4 HR, Anthony Reyes (5.73 ERA in 2009, was lights out in second half of 2009) served up 3 HR while Joba Chamberlain (5.60 ERA in 2009 and 2.60 ERA in 2008 and arguably the best pitcher of the crew) only allowed 1 HR. Relievers who served up home runs include minor league pitcher Anthony Claggett who appeared to be overmatched, Jose Veras, Edward Ramirez, Zack Jackson and Jenson Lewis whos ERA’s range from 5.79 to 43.20 this year. Johan Santana, Tim Lincecum, Brandon Webb and Mariano Rivera these pitchers are not.

It’s too early to draw any conclusions from the weather data presented above. But it’s clear that a number of factors not related to the weather may have resulted in the home run deluge, and we can’t say for sure if the west wind is the cause of the HR deluge:

The accuweather hypothesis appears to be at best an untested guess, not based on modeling studies or scientific observation.

Winds have been equally out of the west as other directions, thus they can’t directly explain the deluge of runs and home runs scored over the weekend.

More home runs have been hit when there is a west wind at Yankee Stadium than when the wind has been from the east or south.

In the games with west winds the pitching has been poor, pitched either by pitchers who do not have demonstrated long term records of being above league average or are who are clearly struggling so far this season.

Cleveland and the Yankees are amongst the two best offensive teams in the American League

At this point there is not sufficient data to prove whether or not wind direction is statistically tied to home runs.

As Peter Abraham pointed out in his blog today, it’s too early to rush to judgment, the Yankees and opponents hit 20 HR in a four game series last year as well! It’s a neat theory to tie wind direction to HR production, but I think it’s irresponsible for accuweather to claim that the west wind is leading to these home runs. We’ll have to see what the numbers bare out this summer, and draw conclusions after a sufficient sample size has been drawn.

Methods. I calculated the mean wind direction, wind speed and air temperature at LaGuardia Airport from raw METAR code taken from the Plymouth State Weather Data Archive. LaGuardia Aiport was chosen to represent conditions in the Bronx due to the well documented problems with the Central Park observation site. The averages were calculated for the hours of the game, based on data taken from box scores, except during the exhibition games vs. the Cubs where length was estimated to be 4 hours.

Table 2. As per table 1, but includes standard deviation and temperature data as well.

Environmentalist Pirates?

2009-04-20T16:50:00.002-04:00

Does the current bout of piracy in the Indian Ocean have its roots in environmental activism?

In February of 2005 the United Nations announced that containers filled with radioactive materials, industrial and medical waste had washed ashore in Somalia.

A United Nations' report released this week says nuclear and hazardous wastes dumped on Somalia's shores had been scattered by the recent Asian tsunami and are now infecting Somalis in coastal areas.

A spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Nick Nuttall, told VOA that for the past 15 years or so, European companies and others have used Somalia as a dumping ground for a wide array of nuclear and hazardous wastes.

"There's uranium radioactive waste, there's leads, there's heavy metals like cadmium and mercury, there's industrial wastes, and there's hospital wastes, chemical wastes, you name it,” he said. “It's not rocket science to know why they're doing it because of the instability there."

Mr. Nuttall said, on average, it cost European companies $2.50 per ton to dump the wastes on Somalia's beaches rather than $250 a ton to dispose of the wastes in Europe.

Recently a Somali ex-patriot named K’Nann posted on the internet explaining why the Somali people did not oppose the piracy that is rampant along their coasts.

Already by this time, local fishermen in the coastline of Somalia have been complaining of illegal vessels coming to Somali waters and stealing all the fish. And since there was no government to report it to, and since the severity of the violence clumsily overshadowed every other problem, the fishermen went completely unheard.

But it was around this same time that a more sinister, a more patronizing practice was being put in motion. A Swiss firm called Achair Parterns, and an Italian waste company called Achair Parterns, made a deal with Ali Mahdi, that they were to dump containers of waste material in Somali waters. These European companies were said to be paying Warlords about $3 a ton, whereas to properly dispose of waste in Europe costs about $1000 a ton.

….

The UN envoy for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, says that the practice still continues to this day. It was months after those initial reports that local fishermen mobilized themselves, along with street militias, to go into the waters and deter the Westerners from having a free pass at completely destroying Somalia's aquatic life. Now years later, the deterring has become less noble, and the ex-fishermen with their militias have begun to develop a taste for ransom at sea. This form of piracy is now a major contributor to the Somali economy, especially in the very region that private toxic waste companies first began to burry our nation's death trap.

Mr. K’Nann is suggesting that current piracy have its roots in residents who were determined to protect their fishing rights and their waters from pollution. In the years following the start of dumping the effort has gone from something justifiable, to villainous. While this is likely a major simplification of events, it’s just interesting to note that this major geopolitical problem may have its roots in environmental degradation.

Could a Long Island Offshore Windfarm Disrupt Weather Radars?

2009-04-15T15:50:00.005-04:00

Above, A marks the spot of a wind farm in central Wisconsin that is disrupting weather radars, making forecasting all the more challenging. Image source: Google Maps.

Saw a great article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently about a large wind farm disrupting weather radar capabilities in central Wisconsin. We’ve talked a lot about the benefits of wind power, especially in rural areas, to generating clean electricity. Here is a demonstrated negative consequence of large wind farm installations.

The National Weather Service has issued a new kind of warning because of a Dodge County wind farm that is disrupting the agency's ability to monitor storms in southeastern Wisconsin.

The wind farm's giant turbines - each as wide as a football field and as tall as a 20-story building - are sending false storm signals to the government's weather radar system.

Weather service officials say they see no significant public safety threat, although they say the wind farm has caused radar interference and could confuse some storm watchers.

Meteorologist Marc Kavinsky said the approaching summer storm season will be the federal agency's first opportunity to gauge the wind farm's full impact.
"It'll be interesting," he said. "I'm hoping the effects will be minimal."
Located just outside the Dodge County community of Iron Ridge, the wind farm includes 36 turbines that began operating over the past few months, generating electricity for several surrounding communities.

The farm is about 30 miles north of the National Weather Service office in Sullivan, which provides radar coverage and severe weather alerts across a 125-mile radius that includes all of southeastern Wisconsin.

The meteorologist, Marc Kavinsky, who was quoted in the article has a great website demonstrating the effects of these tremendous blades on Doppler radar returns.

His key implications of the wind farms on radar returns were:

• Thunderstorm or winter storm characteristics could be masked or misinterpreted, reducing warning effectiveness in the vicinity of the wind farm.

• False signatures contaminating Doppler velocity data in the vicinity of the wind energy facility could reduce forecaster's situational awareness, particularly
during hazardous/severe weather events.

• False precipitation estimates could negatively impact flash-flood warning effectiveness.

To summarize the above, the false returns negatively affect the weather services’ ability to forecast for severe events, like thunderstorms, tornadoes and flooding rains. While this would be a major concern in the Midwest where severe weather associated with thunderstorms is common, how important would it be here in the New York region? Let’s try to anticipate the effects of a wind farm 10 miles off of the south coast of Long Island, as has previously been proposed.

The figure above shows how topography coupled with an extremely high wind farm affects weather radards. Source: National Weather Service.

The figure above shows why the wind farm in Wisconsin is so effective in disrupting the radar signals. The radar beam is tilted up, generally in the neighborhood of 0.5 to 3.5 degrees, and in this case the beam intersects the windfarm because the terrain is sloping upward along the beam path. If the ground was flat, the windfarm would go undetected by radar. How would this work in the New York region?

The NWS Doppler radar that serves the New York region is sited on Brookhaven National Lab on Long Island. A conservative estimate of the height of the Doppler radar is 250 feet above mean sea level. Using Google earth software I calculated the distance from the radar to Fire Island on the south shore of Long Island to be about 8.6 miles. Plan for the windfarm had it to be placed about 12 miles off shore, so let’s estimate the closest possible distance between windfarms and the Doppler radar to be 20 miles (even though in the planning stage the windfarm was located futher west, increasing the distance between radar and windfarm). Next step, figure out the height of the proposed windfarm. Taking the extreme of a 20 story windfarm at 15 feet a story, we come up with a height of 300 feet. With the lowest angle (0.5) of the radar, 20 miles away the beam would be about 528’ above where it started and with the highest angle (3.5) it would be 3696’ above the ground where it started. If you ignore radar beam broadening and throw in a ground elevation of somewhere near 250’ the beam would be 775’ to 4000’ above sea level by the time it reached the windfarm.

Bottom line, a wind farm 20 miles away from the Doppler Radar would require a height of at least 775’ to interfere with Doppler radars offshore in the New York region. While wind farm interference is a problem given the complicated topography of central Wisconsin, it will likely be not be an issue with an offshore farm in the New York region.

Science in the Media

2009-04-10T07:58:00.002-04:00

I study mineral dust that is blown by the wind from continent to continent. There was an episode of CSI or Law & Order in which a suspect was caught by matching dust found on their boot to dust found at a crime scene. I found myself thinking, "wow it's taken me a year and a half to come up with a method to source dust, and they pulled it off in 3 hours!" The technology and science used on those shows is humorous to those of us actually trying to perform it. I think the sentiment was caught nicely by this cartoon from Jorge Cham of phdcomics.com:

Above Image Credit: "Piled Higher and Deeper" by Jorge Cham. www.phdcomics.com.

Anyone have any similar stories to tell about tv shows solving their research topic in three hours?

Will MTA Hike Rates Affect Commuter Behavior?

2009-04-09T09:38:00.007-04:00

A train pulling into the Ossining, NY Metro North Train Station. Photo credit: USA Today.

Yesterday I mentioned that it is the Golden Age for mass transit use in the United States today, as 2008 set a record for the most people using mass transit. At present in the New York Metro region there is a proposal by the MTA to increase fares on commuter train lines by up to 33%. Every day the governor and state legislature play political hardball with the MTA, it becomes more and more likely that the proposed fare hikes will become reality. The question is how will these fare hikes affect the behavior of commuters? Will air quality suffer as a result of these fare hikes?

To answer this it’s useful to know, how does New York’s commuter train lines compare to other Metropolitan train lines in terms of expense? To calculate this I looked at how expensive it would be to ride the train from the central station to the terminal station on each line during rush hour and then divided this number by the total number of miles traveled by rail. The distance travel was estimated by google maps on a few train lines, numbers in red in the tables below represent estimated quantities. One could alternatively calculate the ratio at the first station serviced, midpoint or an average of all the stations serviced, but in this analysis the terminal station for each line was used.

Table 1. Comparison of New York Metro region train line cost per mile. The top group is the Long Island Railroad, the second ground is Metro North and the last group represents New Jersey Transit.

The Long Island Railroad cost an average of 22 cents per mile traveled, or 25 cents per mile traveled if you exclude the Montauk Branch. New Jersey Transit also averaged 22 cents per mile traveled, including the two branches that serve Rockland and Orange Counties in New York. Metro North, which serves the Hudson Valley and Connecticut averaged 27 cents per mile, the highest rate in the Metropolitan Region.

These rates are less than what the IRS considers to be the rate to operate a motor vehicle of 55 cents per mile, thus offering an economic incentive to use mass transit. However trains are often less convenient than an automobile it terms of scheduling and comfort, so the economic incentives must outweigh the comfort costs of using a personal vehicle to remain competitive. Assuming the MTA raises fares the projected 33%, the regional trains would now cost 29 cents per mile (LIRR or 33 cents excluding the Montauk line), 29 cents per mile (NJ Transit) and 36 cents per mile (Metro North). Given the falling cost of operating a vehicle due to declines in gasoline prices, will taking mass transit still be an attractive choice for commuters?

How would these rates compare to other metropolitan regions? The commuter lines in Boston average 20 cents per mile and in the Baltimore – DC – Northern VA corridor the average cost is 23 cents per mile (see the table below). As it stands the New York Metro regions cost of 24 cents per mile places it as the most expensive, but very close in cost to its neighbors. Given a 33% increase in fares across the board, New York would cost on average about 33 cents per mile, which is nearly 50% more expensive as other metropolitan regions.

Table 2. As per table 1, but here the top group are the commuter lines in Boston and the bottom group are the commuter lines in the DC-Baltimore-VA Metro Region.

This large increase in fares, coupled with declining gas prices will lead to additional motorists using the roadways to get to work each day. These additional drivers will congest an already taxed roadway system, leading to increased emissions of carbon dioxide as well as ozone forming pollutants. The increases in commuter fares are a direct threat to air quality in the New York Metropolitan region.

Good News for Mass Transit

2009-04-08T09:12:00.000-04:00

Record high gas prices coupled with a struggling economy caused a surge in mass transit in 2008 Rueters reports.

Americans took 10.7 billion trips on public transit last year, up 4 percent from 2007, the American Public Transportation Association said. This is the highest level of ridership in 52 years.
"Where many of the other indicators in our economy are down, public transit is up," APTA Vice President Rosemary Sheridan told Reuters.
U.S. gasoline prices set records in 2008, rising above $4 a gallon in July. Gasoline costs began to cool off in the fall, however, as the effects of a global economic downturn began to curb oil demand.
Although gasoline prices are down, Sheridan said that many people are sticking with public transportation to save money.
Public transit trips were up 4.12 percent in December to 842 million. Ridership on public transportation rose 1.68 percent to 2.7 billion trips in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared to the same period a year earlier.
This is the fifth consecutive year the association has reported record ridership. Sheridan said the economic slowdown might dent public transportation use in 2009, though, as increased unemployment may lead to fewer commuters.
As Americans rode public transit more last year, they drove less. The U.S. Transportation Department reported last month that highway travel fell 3.6 percent, or almost 108 billion miles, in 2008 from 2007.

Due to the global recession, gas prices have declined markedly since their peak. Wise city planners would begin expanding mass transit options at the present, as gas prices can only rise as global demand increases and supply dwindles. Money for civic projects will be tight in the next few years, but investing in mass transit will provide major benefits for urban areas. Mass transit, when run well, reduce carbon emissions, reduce traffic congestion and allow for inexpensive easy transportation options for local residents. The time is now to invest in public infrastructure, not later when gas prices edge back up.

Scary, scary stuff

2009-04-07T09:00:00.001-04:00

The Republican War on Science is one of the more evocative book titles in recent memory, but it seems like a bit an exaggeration. Sure the Bush Administration did not fund science research, or put a priority on addressing climate change – but the idea of a crusade against science seemed a bit extreme. But, perhaps it does have a bit of validity to it. Recently the Christian Science Monitor reported that the Chair of the Republican National Committee has denied that Global Warming is occurring.

Speaking on a nationally syndicated radio program, Michael Steele, whose official job title is Embattled Chairman of the Republican National Committee, placed himself in opposition to empirically observed reality earlier this month when he denied the existence of global warming.

Mr. Steele who was filling in for conservative pundit Bill Bennett on Mr. Bennett’s drive-time “Morning in America” call-in show on March 6, responded to a caller who mocked the concept of global warming. Here is Steele’s response, as transcribed by the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein:

“Thank you, thank you,” he said. “We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I am using my finger quotation marks here, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is now covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right? Iceland, which is now green. Oh I love this. Like we know what this planet is all about. How long have we been here? How long? No[t] very long.”

Steele managed to pack many factual inaccuracies into this statement. The notion that the planet has entered a cooling phase is a common – but highly misleading – trope among climate change deniers, who often cite temperature readings that show that the hottest year on record was 1998, implying that the planet has been steadily cooling since then.

Those statements belie the ignorance that is currently gripping the Republican Party. That’s some scary stuff right there. For a long time I’ve tried to judge individual politicians on their own personal views and their voting record. But given that the voice of the Republican Party is denying the existence of Global Warming that gives me pause. How can I support any candidate from a party who’s views are so counter to scientific evidence, logic and reason? It makes me wonder for the future of the country.

Imagine a president who doesn’t trust scientists. What if a meteor was detected flying rapidly towards Earth? Does the president say, “wow I don’t see a meteor, I’m sure it’s okay.” What if scientists reported that flounder were going extinct and needed to be protected? Does the president say, “gee I saw flounder in the supermarket, I’m sure it’s fine.” The sort of disregard for scientific thought that Mr. Steele is portraying is terrifying and makes me pause at the thought of his reasoning towards the economy or foreign affairs. A person who cannot take the advice of world experts is not qualified to lead.

Forecasting Isn't Easy

2009-04-06T09:29:00.000-04:00

Solar power at home?

2009-03-16T11:00:00.002-04:00

Good news for those of you living in Palm Desert, CA your city government has a great program that allows home owners to get financing to install solar panels. Bad news is that the program is so popular that if you’re looking to get in, it’s too late.

The program works like this:

Home owner applies for a loan from the city

The city approves the loan, allowing the home owner to have solar panels installed

The home owner then pays back a portion the cost of the instillation when they pay their annual property taxes

The program is a win-win for both the city and residents. Residents are saving upwards of $500 on their electric bills, and the cost of the instillation can be passed onto future owners of the home should they chose to sell the residence. The city benefits from the program by reducing their carbon emission footprint (as is mandated by California law) without having to build a large scale, expensive municipal solar energy plant.

Palm Springs is a unique location in terms of energy consumption and production. It sits in the middle of a large desert, and extensive energy consumption from widespread and long-season air conditioning make the city something of an energy hog. It is also well suited for solar energy generation, as the city receives on average 350 days of sunshine and is at a relatively low latitude.

The program is not without detractors:

But public financing of solar power also has critics, who say government is essentially subsidizing and encouraging a form of energy production that would otherwise not be cost effective. Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute in Berkeley, who is concerned about the proliferation of the programs, said, “It would be better for local governments to do energy efficiency and skip the solar panels.

“If you count the full-interest cost without the tax subsidy, residential solar panels never pay for themselves,” he said. “We shouldn’t be making it a major public priority.”

Perhaps there would be more energy savings per dollar by improving energy efficiency, but if there ever was a place to try this solar experiment it is Palm Desert, CA. Furthermore this experiment seems to be uniquely American. Instead of undergoing a massive government program, it is driven by individuals and is voluntary. Such programs can be successful for people who don’t “think green” but rather are only concerned with the bottom line (of their energy bill).

Would such a program work in the New York Metro region? Absolutely not. There is too little sunshine on an annual basis to make the program manageable. The New York Metro region has tons of wind energy that could be harnessed, but at the present time wind energy cannot be feasibly generated in someone’s backyard. One could imagine municipal level initiatives being successful in terms of increasing home heating efficiency by improving oil/gas burners and home insulation. But home level alternative energy generation remains unlikely in the New York Metro region for the next few years.

Bottle Bill Blues

2009-03-12T17:22:00.000-04:00

If you’ve been into a supermarket you’ve no doubt seen signs prominently displayed in some way or shape disparaging the so called “Bottle Bill.” At present soda and beer cans and bottles are covered under the bottle bill, each container requires a $0.05 deposit, which is paid back to the consumer when he or she returns it. The new bottle bill would expand redemption to cover water bottles, energy drinks, iced teas and sports drinks which were not popular when the previous legislation was passed in 1982. The change that is driving such disdain for the bill in supermarkets is that instead of unredeemed deposits being pocketed by beverage distributors, the unredeemed deposits would go to the New York’s Environmental Protection Fund.

The origin of the bill was driven by a desire for a reduction of discarded waste along roads and waterways.

Ten other states also have container deposit programs, despite lobbying efforts against them by the beverage industry. According to the Container Recycling Institute, an environmental advocacy group, these measures have promoted recycling and reduced litter — 66 percent of deposit containers are returned nationwide, compared with 40 percent without deposits.

The current bill seeks to reduce the quantity of bottles currently not included in the deposit program, by providing financial incentive to residents to clean them up. This is important because 2.5 billion bottles of water are sold in New York State each year. As the New York Times reports:

The legislation is also of interest for those concerned about Long Island’s waterways and 400 miles of beaches. Thomas R. Suozzi, the Nassau County executive, said he finally understood the issue after wading waist deep into a bottle-clogged stream at the Roosevelt Preserve alongside the Meadowbrook Parkway during a cleanup effort last summer.

“It was like a light going on in my head,” he said. “There were literally thousands of bottles down there washed in from storm drains and creeks, and all of them were water bottles or nondeposit bottles.”

Ultimately however, the decision to push ahead with the Bottle Bill comes from a need for adding money to the state coffers.

A proposal by Gov. David A. Paterson in his 2009-10 budget plan would expand the bottle law and change who receives unclaimed deposit money. Currently, the state’s bottle law covers carbonated drinks like beer or soda and lets beverage distributors keep the 5-cent deposits not turned in — $93 million a year, according to state estimates. The governor’s proposal would add the nickel deposit to noncarbonated drinks and send unclaimed deposits to the state’s Environmental Protection Fund.

Depending on who you listen to the amount collected by these distributors, but not redeemed would increase to $118 to $218 million if the redemption program expands to include additional bottles. You can see why supermarkets have been plastering all sorts of notes lobbying against the bottle bill. Don’t feel too bad for the distributors however, as they stand to see an increase from $0.02 to $0.035 on each bottle returned to help provide compensation for the increased quantity of bottles returned.

This proposition seems like a major win-win for New York State tax payers, who will see additional revenue at not real cost and the environment will prosper too. For more information on the bottle bill check out: http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/campaigns/newyorkc.htm.

Snow, snow go away?

2009-03-11T19:15:00.003-04:00

Total snowfall from 8pm March 2nd to 8pm March 3rd. Image from /www.nohrsc.nws.gov/.

Is Suffolk County one major snow storm away from being in serious budget trouble? Since January 1st, Suffolk County has received 25.7” of snow (12” of which fell in one day in early March). This amount is slightly above average for the region, but is not an unprecedented quantity. As the New York Times reports, despite only receiving moderately more snow than a typical season, towns across the county are reeling from the costs of snow removal on town roads and county highways.

In Suffolk County, which was hit hardest by the storm, officials said $2.2 million of their $3 million annual snow budget had now been spent. “We’ve used it on other snowstorms we’ve had, but this one will take the lion’s share,” Mr. Levy said.

A large storm like this one can be worrisome because in most places the snow budget has to last all year — that means not just March, but also November and December.

The timing of snowfall is partly to blame for the high expenses associated with this year’s snow removal, snow storms that hit late at night or on weekends result in increased labor costs due to overtime pay.

Before the storm, Hempstead had already exceeded its annual snow-removal budget of $1.75 million for this year, spending $3.3 million.

Mike Deery, a town spokesman, said this was the first time in five years that Hempstead had exceeded its snow budget. He attributed the spending to the rising cost of salt and the cost of employee overtime when a weekend storm hit earlier this year. Money for snow removal will come from other areas, he said.

It’s hard to imagine blowing a budget by that amount in a winter season, which has been snowier than average but not harsh by any stretches. What would have happened had we had a truly heavy snowfall, say approaching 40” as we did for a number of seasons at the beginning of the 2000’s? Some of the costs no doubt lie in inappropriate use of salt. Is salt needed during snow events or should it be saved for ice storms? Other costs may be inappropriate deployment of labor, perhaps to much effort was paid during some of the smaller snow storms earlier in the season?

All of this leads one to wonder, would more accurate seasonal weather forecasts save towns and counties money? If a prediction could made when budgets were being crafted as to the projected seasonal snowfall, towns and counties would not need to borrow funds to pay snow removal costs. Additionally the National Weather Service has missed a few snow forecasts this season, over predicting snowfall*. No doubt highway superintendents heeding the advice of the meteorologists, and over deploying precious resources for busted snowstorms. This is an interesting example of the value of accurate weather and climate predictions.

* - Interestingly the National Weather Service has been changing the official snow totals at Islip and JFK airports this season, increasing the snow totals, despite the presence of trained weather observers making hourly measurements. Perhaps they are doing this to make their missed forecasts seem less bad?

Chemistry Puns (answers)

2009-03-11T15:26:00.004-04:00

Glad to announce we have two winners: Dr. Aaron Beck and Mr. Fabian Batista. You can claim your prize next Monday.
We also had one loser: Santiago Salinas

Here are the answers:
1. Policeman: Copper
2. Have went (very poor grammar): Argon
3. A motto for a well digging company: Boron
4. Holmium X 0.5 = Halfnium
5. To press a shirt: Iron
6. A kitchen work area with a drain: Zinc
7. A ship's kitchen: Gallium
8. The leg joint above the calf: Neon
9. An amusing prisoner: Silicon
10. Ruler of Davy Jones' locker: Neptunium (also accepted Arrrrrrgon)
11. Large building used to store automobiles: Carbon
12. The Lone Ranger's horse: Silver
13. Opposite of hot: Beryllium
14. The name applied to a blond person from Sweden, Norway or Finland: Scandium
15. What do you do before you brand a steer?: Europium
16. Mickey mouse's dog: Plutonium
17. A 2000 pound casket: Krypton
18. A description of beautiful mountains: Arsenic
19. What you do to steak when you barbecue it: Cerium
20. The name of a red flower: Germanium

Chemistry Puns

2009-03-03T20:25:00.003-05:00

Dug this "punny activity" out of my high school chemistry notes. It's pretty terrible and explains why I don't know much about chemistry today. Anyone who e-mails me at odieoss@yahoo.com with at least 10 correct answers by Friday March 6, 2009 will win a delicious prize. Winners will be able to pick up a home baked treat on Wednesday March 11th in Stony Brook.

With some imagination and a pun now and then, it is possible to use the names of elements as synonyms or substitutes for some phrases. So cesium your pen and name the element!

1. Policeman
2. Have went (very poor grammar)
3. A motto for a well digging company
4. Holmium X 0.5 =
5. To press a shirt
6. A kitchen work area with a drain
7. A ship's kitchen
8. The leg joint above the calf
9. An amusing prisoner
10. Ruler of Davy Jones' locker
11. Large building used to store automobiles
12. The Lone Ranger's horse
13. Opposite of hot
14. The name applied to a blond person from Sweden, Norway or Finland
15. What do you do before you brand a steer?
16. Mickey mouse's dog
17. A 2000 pound casket
18. A description of beautiful mountains
19. What you do to steak when you barbecue it
20. The name of a red flower

The Need for Science Education

2009-02-27T09:55:00.003-05:00

The Importance of Science Literacy

It’s not what we know but rather how we think that is important.

Perhaps the expression most oft uttered in high school science classes across the country is, “why do I need to know this, I will never use this.” And it’s true to a large degree. I am guessing that 90% of Americans don’t need to know how ionic bonding works in metals, what microchondria do in a cell or how harmonic oscillations function. But as science literacy in American’s decreases it is affecting our ability to think critically about issues in not only science but also society. (A lack of science literacy has also hurt the American economy directly, but that is not central to this argument.)

When we think scientifically we observe a phenomina then based on our observations we make a hypothesis. Next we test the hypothesis objectively. We then determine if our test verified or discredited the hypothesis. If the tests supports our hypothesis it becomes a valid theory. This is thinking scientifically, and it can be used by people in many fields, not just scientists. Bankers thinking through an economic problem, a mechanic working through a mysterious car problem and a plumber working through an unpleasant clog to be successful all must think this way, whether they realize it or not. But it’s puzzling how our society does not think scientifically or critically about all topics.

For the past two weeks the sports world has been ablaze, roasting Alex Rodriquez for allegedly testing positive for using steroids from 2001-2003 when he played with the Texas Rangers. Fans our outraged that Alex Rodriquez “cheated” and illegally or unethically increased his home run total by using chemical enhancers. The only problem with this line of thought is that no one has objectively proved that using steroids increases the number of home runs that a player hits.

Let’s think about it scientifically for a minute. We have observed that from the mid 1990’s until about 2003 the number of home runs hit by players increased. We also observed that during this period of times players appeared to increase in size, particularly in muscle mass. Recently we learned that many players from this era were using steroids to increase their muscle mass. Thus we hypothesize that players used steroids to increase their strength and hit more home runs. This is what hundreds of sports columnists and reporters have done in the past few weeks. The only problem is, no one bothered to prove their hypothesis.

In order to be sure that steroids increase home runs we need to test this objectively. We need a control group that did not use steroids, and we need a test group that did. We then need to statistically compare the two groups and determine if the steroids did increase home run totals. (Remember that during the 1990’s baseball expanded rapidly and 48 minor league pitchers became major league pitchers, baseball started playing at stadiums with incredible altitude and ballparks became much, much smaller – there are alternative hypothesis that need testing.)

The tests that have been performed so far suggest that using steroids does not necessarily increase the amount of home runs that you hit. Meanwhile scientifically illiterate announcers, players and columnists continue to report that steroids certainly caused A-Rod to become a great home run hitter. It’s too bad they failed science class, or otherwise they might understand the truth.

We need to work ideas through the scientific method fully to understand the truth. A hypothesis is not a proven theory and it's dangerous to think so (see also risky mortgages). So the next time that someone tells you that a little intelligent design never hurt anyone consider that maybe thinking critically all the way through issues is not optional, it's necessary to know the truth.

Neptune's Pasture

2009-02-25T19:38:00.003-05:00

I just got back from a special seminar presented by Paul Greenberg about his upcoming book “Neptune’s Pasture.” Greenberg presented the audience with two readings, one from the autobiographical portion of his book and the second focusing on the introduction of the book and its central thesis. Afterwards he ended with a lively question and answer session in which the audience presented a number of terrific ideas. The prose presented was lyrical, I am greatly looking forward to ordering the book on Amazon, but alas it is not yet near publication (I will make a note here when it becomes available). I didn’t take notes so what follows is a generalization of the key points and themes to his book.

Greenberg’s central “thesis” as he called it was that humans now stand at the precipice of making critical decisions involving the future of the world’s fisheries. He pointed out that hunter gatherers narrowed down the many, many mammals that used to range our ancestral lands to four that are considered somewhat common now, sheep, goats, pigs and cattle. He then notes that humankind then turned its attention to the skies, narrowing those down to four key species chickens, turkeys, ducks and geese. He then proposes that we will likely do the same to fish, pick four that are manageable species that meet certain taste/textures requirements, and cultivate them while slowly driving other species to extinction. The factors that make this push are varied, from human kind’s desire for choice but “not too much choice” to industrial efficiency favoring only a few profitable options.

He noted that while for our ancestors the culling was not a decision but a necessity. For us, given our improved understanding of ecosystems, what we do to fisheries in the future is a decision and one that we need to consider presently.

The format of the book seems to be an autobiographical introduction, an introduction of the thesis then a discussion of four fish species within context of the thesis including sea bass, cod, something else and tuna.

The discussion that followed the reading was lively and topics ranged along the following:

Categorizing fish as food or wildlife and how public perception of this divide drives choices.

That human taste changes with time, and that has allowed us to move from one fish species to another very quickly, with devastating effects on the “fish of the year.”

Is sustainable fishing really a good premise to move towards. Once a fishery is declared “sustainable” society will move towards it rapidly, making it immediately unsuistainable.

A question was asked where shell fish fit into his thesis, and Greenburg seemed to think that it was a different issue, one that affected developing nations more than developed nations.

The idea is pretty interesting and a I thought a solid one. My fisheries friends told me that there were a lot of holes in the principle of the idea, but in my ignorance I missed them. Anyone want to cast some doubt on the theory?

How Now Brown Cloud?

2009-02-03T09:55:00.003-05:00

Brown clouds are not the sinister creation of a science fiction writer, but rather the name that atmospheric scientists have given to smog, soot and dirt clouds that obscure the Earth’s surface from space. Smog originates mainly from the burning of fossil fuels for transportation, but can also form naturally in some locations. Soot is found in the atmosphere as a result of wood or coal burning, or natural occurring forest fires. Some people explain these clouds to “pollution clouds,” but in truth these clouds are more complicated than that, sometimes being a result of man’s activities, but other times being wholly natural.

When you spend a lot of time looking at satellite images of the Earth as I do, you get used to certain features of the Earth looking a certain way. Sometimes, these features become obscured by a grey haze. Occasionally this grey haze becomes thicker and darker in color. This is what is referred to generally as a brown cloud. Brown clouds are common over India and Southeast Asia, especially in the late fall through early spring, where rapid industrialization has increased emissions from human activities.

The above figure, taken from NASA’s MODIS website, features Southeastern Asia. To the north of the image is Nepal and China, the mountainous terrain there is crisp and clearly brown in color. As you move south into India and Bengladesh, the surface becomes obscured by a grayish obscuration. The green of India and Bengladesh’s forests is barely visible. This is due to the presence of a so-called brown cloud, a cloud made of soot, smog and dust, most of which are due to human activities.

However these brown clouds are not only native to Asia, but can be found in the United States as well, as the image below shoes.

This satellite photograph, taken from NASA’s MODIS website, shows the Southeastern United States. Here a brown cloud is seen over Louisiana and Texas. The origin of this cloud, seen in the summer of 2004, were extensive forest fires in Southern Canada.

Scientists recently have been examining what exactly causes these brown clouds over Asia to form so regularly each year. Understanding this is important because these brown clouds can affect how much sunlight reaches the surface in these regions, affecting not only climate but crop growth. These clouds are also thought to interact with regular water clouds, changing the way the normal clouds reflect sunlight and how they produce rainfall.

The results of the scientists research are quite shocking, at least to me. The expectation was that a large portion of these brown clouds would come from fossil fuel combustion. The team of scientists report that around 2/3rds of the source material for the brown clouds come from biomass burning. In this region, biomass is used for home heating and cooking, along with burning of residual crops to produce fertilizer. This is an important finding, because it would allow for regional governments to address the issue of unclean home cooking and heating fuels, if they wanted to improve air quality.

A Golden Opportunity for Conservation on the East End

2009-02-02T08:00:00.000-05:00

If you’ve ever taken the picturesque ferry across Long Island Sound from New London, CT to Orient Point, NY then you’ve seen Plum Island up close. Plum Island sits only a mile or so to the north and east of Orient Point, which is the easternmost point on Long Island’s North Fork. Chances are however that you’ve never been to Plum Island as the island has been closed off to the public since before World War II.

Plum Island, its location highlighted with a red square, sits between Orient Point and Fishers Island at the eastern terminus of Long Island Sound. It is currently home to the Department of Homeland Security’s Plum Island Animal Disease Laboratory, but is set to be decommissioned starting in 2014.

Perhaps that will change in the next decade or so, as the island’s current occupants are set to move out. Since the end of World War II the island has been home to the United States Animal Disease Laboratory, run by the Agriculture Department until its transfer to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. Now however DHS has plans to replace the Plum Island facility with a larger, state of the art facility in Kansas.

Above is a view of Plum Island, courtesy of the US Department of Agriculture’s website.

While state and federal politicians are campaigning to keep Plum Island functioning as a animal disease research laboratory even after the new laboratory in Kansas opens, it’s worth considering what to do the island in the case that is decommissioned.

According to the Times article, local residents are already salivating at the prospect of turning the island into another suite of expensive homes, in the traditional Hampton’s style.

Enzo Morabito, the director of real estate development for Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate in Bridgehampton, which deals exclusively in luxury property, said a two-acre lot of bare waterfront property on the south side of Plum Island would likely go for about $2 million.

He also said the entire island would be suitable for a golf course and luxury homes.

“That’s what I would do with it,” Mr. Morabito said. “That’s the highest and best use.”

With all due respect to Mr. Morabito, perhaps there is a more egalitarian approach to the land that could be taken. Why not consider opening the island up as a national or state park? The island fits the criteria that many set for designation as national park, it is both strikingly beautiful terrain and also of a historic value.

It is thought that Plum Island is the location of the first confrontation between British soldiers and members of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War. The British Army and Navy had taken to raiding coastal Long Island for provisions and supplies at the onset of the conflict. So it is told, the first organized confrontation between the two armies occurred as American soldiers attempted to evacuate livestock from Plum Island to more secure locations on the mainland.

Additionally, Plum Island is a green haven in an increasingly developed region. Fishers Island to the northeast is an island which has been developed extensively for residential use. Plum Island could be developed only modestly, and still provide the infrastructure necessary for an exceptional national park.

As Long Island steadily looses its remaining open space to sub-division after sub-division, turning Plum Island into a national park represents a tangible opportunity to protect the environment, increase parkland and preserve local heritage.

More NASA Images

2009-01-27T09:15:00.000-05:00

Well yesterdays images seemed to be quite a hit. So I thought I'd share some more resources.

You can check out more NASA pictures every day. Here is the daily gallery from MODIS, an Earth orbiting satellite with many geophysical research instruments:
http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/

Here is the image gallery from NASA proper, which offers a much larger spread of images and photos:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/

Great link...

2009-01-26T09:00:00.003-05:00

Hi All,

The blog will be back up to full speed next week, but for now check out this great collection of NASA images. Some truly amazing shots showing the absolute beauty of many features of the Earth. The picture shown here is my favorite of all the images shown. Check them out yourself!

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/earth_observed.html

Hat tip to Santiago, for the link.

Return of the Blog

2009-01-25T16:43:00.000-05:00

On Monday February 2nd, the Metro Environmental Blog will return in full force! A two month extended break was taken as a result of a stressful semester coming to a close, a proposal defense and two major holidays. I can't wait to get back in the saddle and start writing regularly again!

Happy Thanksgiving!

2008-11-27T06:00:00.001-05:00

I hope everyone is having a healthy and blessed Thanksgiving today.

I have no idea where the cartoon from the right is from, otherwise I would cite it.

If you are able to, and would like to, this is a great time of the year to give to those who are lacking.

Here are a few great options for people to donate to if you are feeling moved. Please leave more suggestions in the comments, of other good alternatives.

Ossining Food Pantry
Westchester Food Bank
Long Island Cares
New York City Food Bank

Thanks for reading. Enjoy the holiday!

South Korea threatens Madagascar's Rain Forests

2008-11-26T11:15:00.003-05:00

The number one environmental problem is population growth. Population growth is in effect the cause of all other environmental issues. How do you know that your nation has a population growth problem? Perhaps when you have to start leasing lands in other countries to grow enough food to support your exploding population, as South Korea is presently having to do. The BBC reports that South Korea’s largest corporation is leasing huge tracts of land in Madagascar.

Madagascar is already under tremendous pressure from its own population for farmland. The rain forest there, which is home to many, many endangered species, is under tremendous pressure and is being destroyed at terrifyingly high rates. That pristine environments are now being threatened by population growth in nations thousands of miles away is a new threat.

Take a look at how ridiculous the population growth has been in the past 100 years (image taken from http://www.theoildrum.com/). At the same time the amount of land available for use on Earth has not increased at all. Leaving some nations in situations like those that are now being seen in South Korea, where people are outsourcing agriculture for their survival.

Daewoo is leasing the vast tract of land - half the size of Belgium - for 99 years and hopes to produce 5 million tonnes of corn a year by 2023.

It will use South African expertise and local labour on the plantations.
Asian countries have been trying to ensure access to food supplies after grain prices soared earlier this year.

Daewoo will also grow palm oil on another 300,000 acres of land leased in Madagascar.
The conglomerate is already developing a 50,000-acre corn farm in Indonesia in partnership with South Korea's biggest feed maker, Nonghyup Feed.

Other countries short of arable land, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have also been seeking agricultural investments in Africa or Asia.

And some African countries have expressed interest in receiving foreign investors.
Angola has offered farmland for development while Ethiopia's prime minister, Meles Zenawi, has said he was eager to see foreign companies take a stake in his country's agriculture.

My college roommate Kevin is in the Air Force and was stationed in Korea for a while. When last I spoke to him he had a strong impression of how very urbanized that nation is, as opposed to Germany (where he was stationed previously) and the United States. The article notes that South Korea is not alone, that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are also looking to acquire arable land by proxy. I suspect that other nations will be looking to outsource their food needs, as their population continues to explode. (My guess: Nigeria and the Philippines will soon be on this list).

The population growth issue brings up many spiritual and moral questions. It is one thing to have the communist government of China limit their subjects to one child per couple, but it is another thing for a free nation to impose such restrictions. Some faiths have come out as being strongly against birth control. How then do we deal with this great looming problem?

Microscope Images of Dust

2008-11-25T14:38:00.009-05:00

Ever wonder what blown dust looks like under a microscope? No, you haven’t? Well then this post isn’t for you. Here we’re going to look at collected dust particles under extreme magnification, by way of the scanning electron microscope at the material science department at Stony Brook. If you’re interested in learning more about the machine check out the wikipedia page on how scanning electron microscropes work and then check out the gallery of images taken from the scanning electron microscope at Stony Brook, maintained by Jim Quinn. Some very cool shots over there.

The images we’re about to look at are taken at a very high magnification. The particles we are looking at are in actuality tiny, but here will appear to be quite large. From these images we get an idea of how big the dust is, how it is shaped, how dense it is on the filter and what the dust particles are made of (by mass spectroscopy).

The filter we are looking at is from Pensacola, Florida. We chose Florida because it is apt to be impacted by dust from North Africa (the Sahara Desert) and possibly from Asia too. This filter is from a particularly dusty period. The sample was shared with us by Atmospheric Research Inc, and we are grateful for their assistance.

The unit of length is measured in microns, or to be technical micro-meters. The human eye can detect objects down to about 40 microns in size. A grain of salt is about 60 microns in size. A human hair is 70 to 100 microns in diameter. The objects we are looking at are between 1 and 10 microns generally, so much smaller than what the naked eye can detect.

Image #1:

The spider-like dark grey strands are Teflon filbers. They interconnect in a weave to form the filter on which particles in the atmosphere are collected. I was quite surprised that the filter looked like this. I expected it to be much more solid, but as you can see it is quite porous, well at least on a particle level.

On the filter we see three flakes of dust one in the top left, one in the top right and one in the center. The dust appears to be white on the image. The brighter the color on the image the higher the atomic weight of the particle. Thus, heavier elements appear to be bright white, and light elements appear to be dark grey. The dust particles are well rounded and look to be quite physically weathered.

On the bottom of the image, on the footer, you can see the scale bar. Using the scale bar at the bottom we can estimate the dust particles to be about 2 microns in length.

From the spectral analysis, we see that this particle is composed mainly of silicon and oxygen, suggesting that this is likely sand. (Note if you are looking at the spectral analysis, that the fluorine peak is from the Teflon filter itself).

Image #7:

This is a much larger particle, coming in at about 5 microns in width and 10 microns in length. It has much sharper edges, suggesting it has not been weathered much.

Spectral analysis shows that this particle is composed of iron, nickel, chromium, calcium and aluminum; as well as silicon and oxygen. This suggests it is an iron oxide of some variety.

Image #10:

Again this is a very large particle, coming in at 7.5 microns in width and nearly 15 microns in length. The larger the particle the more likely it is from local sources. Large particles tend to be heavier and thus fall out of the atmosphere quicker. Thus we expect particles from distant sources like Africa and Asia to be small.

Spectral analysis suggests that this particle is composed of iron, chromium, calcium, and aluminum; as well as silicon and oxygen. This is likely an iron oxide as well.

Image #11:

This mammoth particle is over 20 microns in width and 15 microns in length. Note how smooth it looks, with rounded edges. There appear to be little deposits growing on top of the particle.

Spectral analysis shows that this particle is rich is calcium, oxygen, aluminum and silicon. It is likely calcium carbonate – with some sort mineral contained in the matrix.

Image #12:

Now we are looking at the type of particles that make up windblown dust, small and spherical, ready for flight. This particle weighs in at less than 1 micron in diameter.

Spectral analysis shows that it is composed of nearly pure lead!

Image #13:

Here is another small fellow (bright spot, center of image). He is composed of iron, zinc and sulphur.

Image #15:

Look in the center of the image for a small grey, box like image. The particle is about 1.5 microns by 1.5 microns. This is a crystal of pure sulphur. It has nearly perfectly squared edges.

Image #21:

Soil, dirt and sand aren’t the only particles in the atmosphere. Here we see signs of living material in the atmosphere. Take a look at the honey comb like particles in the middle of the image. I’m not a marine biologist, but those appear to be diatoms (a type of plankton from marine environments) or diatom like cells on top of a dust particle. It’s hard to tell but the strand of diatoms seem to continue downward over the dust particle, before their signal is subsumed.

I hope you enjoyed your fun science pictures of the day!

Catching up...

2008-11-07T06:45:00.001-05:00

During the period I was away working BNL, I was looking at and archiving interesting articles to blog about when I got back. Well then came the election special, and now I’m all sorts of behind.

So here are a few articles that you might find interesting, that I just don’t have proper time to discuss here:

Scientists performing research in the Amazon have discovered a species of ancient ants, that are probably the forbearers to the common ant found today. Evolutionary ecologist have long suspected that ants descended from wasps, and that ancestor ants should look something like a hybrid between the two. The results are surprising. An image at the Times website had a really neat interactive picture of the ant, with notations about unique characteristics of the ancient ant.

The Hubbel telescope is back in operation after a data router failed in late September. NASA engineers were able to activate a backup system, which had not been used in 18 years. A mission to repair the data router has been delayed, as parts are not yet ready for the mission.

The worlds fisheries are in danger of collapsing in the next few decades, as overfishing and government mis-management puts tremendous pressure on fish populations. This recent report suggests private ownership of fish stocks can improve fish populations. There appears to be a certain “Tragedy of the Commons” feel to this story, as a public, community resource has been exploited over the past 50 years, to the point of which the shared resource is nearing the point of collapse.

Researchers at Yale University are attempting to return some now extinct ~~turtles~~ tortoises to existence. The tortoises, from the Galapagos Islands were decimated by whaling ships hunting them to extinction. This genetic manipulation is either exciting/scary/confusing depending on your perspective of genetics research.

Meanwhile German scientists have concluded that intermediate quantities of emitted dirt and dust enhances rainfall. Evidently there is a Goldilocks syndrome with respect to rain and earthborne particles; too little dirt and too much dirt leads to little rain. You need just the right amount of dirt to get a rainstorm. The article itself is a bit tough to read and contains a couple of misnomers (i.e. implying that humans have increased the amount of terrestrial aerosols by 5000% or 50x more), but explaining aerosols is difficult, so the author gets a pass from me.

If everyone knows the tree had fallen, and then someone finds the fallen tree, is it news? Image to the right shows the so called chemical-equator, a line which pollutants do not freely cross. Image taken from Hamilton et al, from AGU journals.

And lastly, we’ve known for quite some time that the northern and southern hemispheres exchange gasses slowly. Pollutants emitted in the Northern Hemisphere rarely enter the Southern Hemisphere because they are typically removed from the atmosphere much faster than air is transported in between the two hemispheres. Anyway, a group of Aussie scientists have evidently proven this experimentally, identifying a barrier between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. Question: if we already knew this, is it news?

Chicago's Carbon Cap and Trade

2008-11-05T08:00:00.001-05:00

The City of Chicago is all set to launch a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. The city is seen to the right, as viewed from a NASA satellite. Image source: NASA.

Both candidates in the presidential election supported a cap and trade system for the nation to reduce carbon emissions. As such it’s likely that we’ll see a national plan developed in the next few years. The city of Chicago is ahead of the game however, having started one in their metro region as reported by this article.

Mayor Richard M. Daley of Chicago on Thursday unveiled perhaps the most aggressive plan of any major American city to reduce heat-trapping gases.

The blueprint would change the city’s building codes to promote energy efficiency. It also calls for installing huge solar panels at municipal properties and building alternative fueling stations.

….

Like hundreds of other cities, Chicago has pledged by 2020 to reduce the emissions of heat-trapping gases 25 percent from the levels in 1990, the baseline established by the Kyoto Protocol, an international climate treaty. Mr. Burke said the Chicago plan offered much more specific ways than other cities’ plans to measure and cut the emissions.

The challenge facing cap and trade programs is implementation. It’s one thing to limit emissions, and a second thing to empower citizens, small businesses and industry to make the changes necessary to achieve emission reductions. For a city to succeed it must develop a multi-faceted plan, addressing private and public transportation, residential energy consumption, commercial energy consumption, government energy consumption, as well as low impact water and sanitation systems. Chicago’s proposal is a comprehensive one, addressing issues from renewable, alternative fuels, to building design and reducing water consumption.

“People think in terms of polar ice caps and rising ocean levels,” Mr. Burke said, “but this takes a look at what would happen to a Midwestern city like Chicago if nothing is done.”

By the end of the century, if no action is taken, he said, Chicago is likely to face 30 more days of 100-degree weather per year, as well as stretches of severe drought.
“The climate of Chicago,” Mr. Burke said, “would resemble what is currently East Texas.”

This was the first time a major American city has produced models to show local effects of global warming, he added.

The mayor argues why he is enacting these changes on a region scale, when climate change is truly a global problem.

“We can’t solve the world’s climate change problem in Chicago,” Mr. Daley said at a news conference at the John G. Shedd Aquarium, “but we can do our part.”

Mayor Bloomberg, who is pushing hard for a third term in spite of recent public referendums supporting term limits, has begun investigation how New York City could handle the effects of climate change, but has not yet proposed a cap and trade for the city. It is likely that he will not be willing or able to do so under the current economic conditions.

Thanks for reading!

2008-11-04T07:15:00.001-05:00

Hello Dear Readers***,

Thanks for reading the blog. We're a bit over two months old now, and we're at about 40 posts. Last week was a highlight for the blog. In addition to our much anticipated election special we received a bit of national attention.

Joe Posnanski, a columnist for the Kansas City Star and Sports Illustrated, who has been twice cited by the Associated Press Editors as the best sports columnist of the year, wrote a blog post citing my rant railing against Bud Selig's verbal trashing of weathermen. The article was also picked up at the very popular LoHud Yankees Blog by Peter Abraham, which is probably the first stop I make on the internet every morning. Later on in the week the blog post was also picked up in an internal NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) newsletter and carried as the first topic. A friend of the blog notes that this is circulated not only at NOAA but also on capitol hill to congressional offices. So I remain quite excited about all the excitement that one innocent post generated. Hopefully we can continue to provide some interesting, and occasionally provocative material for your consumption.

So, thanks again for reading and keep commenting. If you would like to contribute to the blog or have an issue that you'd like to see discussed, please let me know and I'll be happy to address it if I can.

Yours Truly,

Owen

Election 2008: Metro Environmental Blog Endorsements

2008-11-03T06:00:00.000-05:00

In case you missed it, we've spent the last few days discussing the presidential candiates' positions on environmental issues. We've talked about Funding Science Research, Alternative Energy, Non-Renwable Energy, and Climate Change. Today we make some endorsements for local and federal elections, based on the candidates environmental voting records and proposals.

State Senate:

Ken LaVelle (R) – District 1 (Eastern Suffolk).

Endorsed by New York Conservation League. Has a long term history of environmental stewardship.

John Flanagan (R) – District 2 (Northwestern Suffolk).

His opponent does not appear capable of handling the responsibilities of state senate. Senator Flanagan does not appear to take much interest in the environment, instead pursing other issues in Albany. We’d like to hear more from him on the environment but endorse him none the less.

Brian Foley (D) – District 3 (Southwestern Suffolk)

His opponent, 82 year old Cesar Trunzo is no longer an active legislature, having not spoken on the Senate floor in over 2 years. Brian Foley did a good job cleaning up corruption in Brookhaven Town, and will do a good job in Albany too.

Representatives:

Tim Bishop (D) - District 1 (Eastern Long Island)
Tim Biship has long been a friend to environmental causes and improving higher education. Comes endorsed by the New York League of Conservation Voters.

Jim Hall (D) - District 19 (Middle Hudson Valley, Northern Westchester)
Strong voting record on the environment, received a score of 100% from League of Conservation Voters.

Nita Lowey (D) - District 18 (Westchester County)
Strong voting record on the environment, received a score of 100% from League of Conservation Voters.

State Assembly:

Steve Engelbright (D) – District 4 (Stony Brook, Port Jefferson)
A member of the Geosciences faculty at Stony Brook University, he is one of the few science educated members of the Assembly. He comes highly endorsed for his deep seeded support of the environment and higher education. He is endorsed by the New York League of Conservation Voter.

Sandy Galef (D) – District 37 (Ossining, Yorktown)
Ms. Galef is a long time assemblywoman, and has a demonstrated long term record of supporting environmentally friendly legislation. She is endorsed by the New York League of Conservation Voter.

US President

I am endorsing and supporting Barack Obama for President of the United States of America, based on his proposed plan for energy and the environment.

I have long admired Senator John McCain, so much so in fact that I agreed to trade my vote in the Democratic Primary with the vote of a friend who was a Republican. I would pull the lever for Barack Obama for her, if she would vote for John McCain for me. So this election was, until a certain point, a relatively difficult decision for me.

Senator McCain, I believe will tackle greenhouse gas emissions comprehensively. I like his proposal to increase nuclear power, and his opposition to federal corn subsidies. I don’t quite understand his lukewarm support for wind and solar power, and wish he would commit to increasing funding for the hard sciences. I cringe at his desire to pursue offshore drilling, and find his overwhelming support for coal energy to be quite disappointing. Overall Senator McCain has a modest proposal to handle the environment, that is most likely acceptable to address the challenges we will face this century.

However, Senator Obama’s environmental policy is more than acceptable, it’s both exciting and visionary and will make the United States into a leader on environmental issues. Senator Obama receives high marks for his support for wind and solar energy, his willingness to increase funding of science research, and his support science education. I hope that he continues to qualify his support for coal and offshore drilling, and I pray that his support for corn subsidies wanes as he shifts his responsibilities to representing the people of Illinois to representing the people of America. Senator Obama could be the first president since Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter to truly advance environmental stewardship in the United States, and now more than ever that sort of leadership is needed.

While Senator Obama has a better plan, it was not so superior to Senator McCain to sway me in voting overall. But frankly, I lost my admiration for Senator McCain when he nominated Sarah Palin to be his vice president. Her environmental record as Governor of Alaska is frightening. She has routinely ignored science research, and instead has supported polices that agree with her ideology. She doesn’t believe that man has caused global warming, and will not take the decisive actions needed to curb our emissions. She has a history of being insensitive to biodiversity concerns, except when industry can be hurt by the results. Sarah Palin is not qualified to be vice-president of the United States, and should God forbid anything happen to Senator McCain, she would be an absolute disaster as a president.

So on Tuesday I will be voting for Barack Obama. Not so much as casting a vote for him, but rather casting a vote against Sarah Palin. Thanks for reading this series. Regular posting will continue on Wednesday.

Election 2008: Climate Change

2008-11-01T23:14:00.002-04:00

Today we continue our look at the two presidential candidates' positions on environmental science issues. We’ve previously looked at the candidates’ positions on Funding Science Research, Alternative Energy, and non-Renewable Energy. Today we conclude our discussion with a look at how the candidates will tackle the looming challenge of climate change.

I’m ready to be done with this election. I’m tired of seeing attack ads on the sides of highways, hearing damning reports on the radio and having a steam of slanderous video beamed into my living room. I’m certainly tired of hearing about the latest polls from Pennsylvania, Nevada or North Carolina. And I’m definitely tired of writing these long winded research intensive posts that have seemingly generated very little interest.

Do the candidates believe that climate change is occurring?
Obama:

There can no longer be any doubt that human activities are influencing the global climate and we must react quickly and effectively.

McCain:

We know that greenhouse gas emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten disastrous changes in the climate. The same fossil-fuels that power our economic engine also produced greenhouse gases that retain heat and thus threaten to alter the global climate….The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington.

Okay great, glad we’re all on the same page here.

What actions will you take to address the situation?
McCain:

To dramatically reduce carbon emissions, I will institute a new cap-and-trade system…

Obama:

Specifically, I will implement a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions…

Alright, everyone’s on the same page, this is going to be a short post! Both McCain and Obama state that their cap and trade program will reduce US emissions to 1990’s levels by 2020, and then to a cut 60% (McCain) or 80% (Obama) on current emissions by 2050. In essence the same thing.

McCain in his answer proposes a few additional steps:
- Increasing the penalty for not meeting CAFÉ standards. CAFÉ standards set the gas mileage standards for passenger vehicles in the United States. Senator McCain does not however indicate a desire to increase standards, which Senator Obama proposes to do.
- Senator McCain proposes to create a research and development tax credit to those businesses producing greenhouse gas friendly products.
- Senator McCain proposes a $300 million dollar prize for the creation of a battery to power hybrid-electric vehicles.

The Devil is in the details…
So Senators McCain and Obama have similar perspectives on global warming, similar goals and share a mechanism by which to address it. Both propose a cap and trade, but each would go about implementing their cap and trade in different ways.

First, let’s shed a bit of light on what a cap and trade is. A regulating body, in the form of a government sets a limit (cap) on the total amount of pollutants to be allowed. The total amount of pollutants is divided into small increments, otherwise called “credits,” and are distributed to those doing the polluting. If a polluter produces more pollution than it has credits for, it must purchase additional credits from a polluter who has not used all of theirs. Thus trading industry is developed, with fiscal incentives for companies to reduce the amount of pollution produced. The total cap is often reduced incrementally, so as to over time slowly reduce the total amount of pollution a nation is producing.

This concept is not new to the United States. There is a cap and trade system in place for sulphur and nitrogen oxides, a gas most commonly produced from coal burning.

There are two major variables in a cap and trade: the initial allocation of credits and at what level the “cap” is set. The candidates are more or less in agreement of the cap, that is to say they have a specific goal to be at by 2020. But how the candidates would initially distribute the carbon credits is different. Senator Obama would auction off carbon credits, whereas Senator McCain would give allotments to companies based on current emissions.

Conclusion:
Both Senator Obama and Senator McCain are in agreement about climate change being the fault of mankind. Both Senators agree that US needs to take a leadership role. Senator McCain supports market based, Senator Obama supports federal regulations (mandates). Both would address the situation by implementing a cap and trade. There are slight differences in how the candidates would initially distribute their carbon credits. From what I read environmentalists tend to prefer Senator Obama’s cap and trade program, but both candidates get good marks from me for their desire to tackle climate change.

Another reference that might be interesting is grist.org’s candidates factsheets about the environment. Click here for Obama’s and here for McCain’s. Actually those factsheets cover pretty much everything we discussed over the past four posts but much more succinctly.

Oh well, next we’ll hear my endorsement for President, along with a few other races in the New York Metro Region.

Election 2008: Science Funding

2008-10-31T11:13:00.004-04:00

Today we continue our look at the two presidential candidates' positions on environmental science issues. Yesterday we talked about their alternative energy proposals, and on Wednesday we spoke of their non-renewable energy proposals. Today we're talking about how they will fund science research, and next Monday we will conclude with their positions on climate change and my endorsement.

America has prospered in the recent decades due to scientific, technological and engineering advances. Since the Second World War, America has been home to the worlds most advance science research, a situation which is expected to change within the next decade as China and Europe pass the United States.

The Case for Science
Education. America is no longer producing men and women educated in math and science in numbers necessary to run the engines of our economy and perform world class research. America is importing young scientists from foreign countries to perform research, many of whom get their education for free from America and then return to their home countries. It is important that we develop math and science programs in middle school, high school and college that produce students capable of contributing to the nation.

National Security. A strong national math and science program is needed to develop the engineers and scientists who work for national security programs, developing weapons and technology to keep American’s and America’s servicemen and women from harm.

Pride. America’s pre-eminence in the space program has been a point of pride for our nation, that has driven our technological advances and propelled many a great scientific career. Today the success of the United States space program is threatened both by government budget cuts and the rapid advances being made in China and Europe.

Recent History
While the United States debt continues to spiral out of control, research funds for science have remained flat or declined in the past 15 years. I realize that web comics are generally not a great source for data, this comic taken from PhD comics is a well researched and properly cited reference.

Although there are a lot of lines on this chart, but a couple lines tell the picture. The blue and red lines represent genetic research and health research funding. Both begin increasing in federal support in the later half of the Clinton administration and continue growing through the first half of the Bush administration. At the same time the yellow, purple and pink lines, which represent space research, environmental research and energy research begin decreasing, and continue doing so to the present. The government has increased health research at the expense of science research. Military research which had declined from 1988 to 2000, has been increasing rapidly, exceeding the total research spent during the cold war.

So in general the government has decreased research funding to hard sciences, while increasing research funding to health and military.

Candidates Positions
The candidates explained their positions on science research and innovation at Sciencedebate2008.com. Here are some highlights.

Philosophies. To those of you paying attention to the election the candidates perspective on science research follows along with the candidates economic plan. Senator McCain favors removing wasteful earmarks, and reallocating those funds to science and reducing government oversight to allow unfettered research. Senator Obama favors increasing research funds for the hard sciences, and promoting educational programs for young scientists. This is as close as you get to the stereotypical “Regan Limited Government Disciple” vs. “Liberal Tax and Spend” positions on the entire campaign.

McCain

• Appoint a Science and Technology Advisor within the White House to ensure that the role of science and technology in policies is fully recognized and leveraged, that policies will be based upon sound science, and that the scientific integrity of federal research is restored;

• Eliminate wasteful earmarks in order to allocate funds for science and technology investments;

• Fund basic and applied research in new and emerging fields such as nanotechnology and biotechnology, and in greater breakthroughs in information technology;

• Promote greater fiscal responsibility by improving the scientific and engineering management within the federal government;

• Ensure U.S. leadership in space by promoting an exploration agenda that will combine the discoveries of our unmanned probes with new technologies to take Americans to the Moon, Mars, and beyond;

• Grow public understanding and popularity of mathematics and science by reforming mathematics and science education in schools;

Senator McCain appears to continue the trend set by President Bush of funding health research. President Bush also gave NASA a mandate to increase the space exploration program, and land a manned vessel on Mars. While this is a noble goal, NASA ended up redirecting funds from Earth based environmental research into the Mars project, as no additional funds were allotted by the Predient or Congress. Senator McCain appears to support President Bush’s Mars mandate, and it is unclear if he will provided additional funds to NASA so that they can accomplish this without decreasing Earth based research.

Obama

My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. We will increase research grants for early-career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs.

A vigorous research and development program depends on encouraging talented people to enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and giving them the support they need to reach their potential. My administration will work to guarantee to students access to strong science curriculum at all grade levels so they graduate knowing how science works – using hands-on, IT-enhanced education. As president, I will launch a Service Scholarship program that pays undergraduate or graduate teaching education costs for those who commit to teaching in a high-need school, and I will prioritize math and science teachers. Additionally, my proposal to create Teacher Residency Academies will also add 30,000 new teachers to high-need schools – training thousands of science and math teachers. I will also expand access to higher education, work to draw more of these students into science and engineering, and increase National Science Foundation (NSF) graduate fellowships. My proposals for providing broadband Internet connections for all Americans across the country will help ensure that more students are able to bolster their STEM achievement.

In 2005 I received an honorable mention in the NSF Graduate Fellowship program. I would have received three years of tuition and support, had the program been fully funded by the Clinton and Bush administrations. Instead I have been supported by teaching assistantships from the university, which has greatly slowed my academic progress as I have to teach in order to recieve my tuition and stipend. So, I understand first hand what the budget cuts to NSF have meant to young scientists. Hearing Senator Obama support this program, is heartening to me, although I am the first to admit that I am quite obviously biased about this issue.

Senator Obama also mentions that he would increase the support to the physical sciences, and increase support into new energy development, which is in my opinion greatly needed after years of funding cuts to these programs.

Conclusion I don’t think I can offer an objective analysis of the two positions. It will come down to voter preference of government philosophy, should the federal government step back and be a “small” government or should it increase funding of sciences and be a “large” government. Personally I feel that since if the government doesn’t fund this research, no one will, so we need to invest in science and engineering for the future of our nation. But I do respect the opinion of those who feel that the federal government is too large, and we need to cut spending and programs.

Senator Obama gives specific examples of programs that will encourage young scientists, and moreso than that also provide financial support that will ensure American Universities will continue to provide competent scientists and engineers to power our economy. As such I favor his position here, but must admit that I am badly biased. I would love to hear from you if you disagree.

Election 2008: Alternative, Renewable Energies

2008-10-30T10:52:00.007-04:00

One of the more striking impressions I’ve gotten from the presidential candidates is what their motivation for their environmental stewardship is. Senator John McCain appears to be passionate about protecting the environment. It’s obvious that he cares deeply about the environment and protects it out of moral concern. Senator Barack Obama also takes great interest in the environment. But it appears, to me at least, that he views the environment as an economic issue. We should do what’s right for the environment because it will cost us in the long run if we don’t, and if we do it correctly it might actually help the economy. I’m not sure which is the better philosophy, nor am I sure if that even matters. Both candidates seem to have their hearts in the right place, even if how their heart got their varies greatly. It would seem that environmental advocacy has come a long way.

Alternative, Renewable Energy Policy

If you’ve been watching television ads during the election, you’ve no doubt been bombarded with pictures of windmills and solar panels on verdant rolling fields. Both candidates have come out strongly endorsing alternative energies as an important means for achieving energy independence. So our task today is to understand the nuisances of each candidates' policies, to see who has a better feel for what alternative, renewable fuels are.

First some definitions. An alternative fuel is any energy source that provides an alternative from traditional fossil fuels. Thus “clean” coal is not an alternative fuel, as it is a fossil fuel. A renewable fuel is one that is regenerated quicker than humans consume it. Solar, wind, hydro-electric, tidal power are all examples of renewable fuels.

Today we’re going to talk about a couple of alternative energies possibilities, we’ll look at ethanol, a biofuel on which the candidates differ in opinion greatly as well as solar and wind power, on which both candidates have only slightly different platforms.

Biofuels

The positions: Here a major philosophical difference between the two candidates is evident. Senator Obama is for government mandates and Senator McCain favors government incentives. John McCain supports producing biofuels from cellulosic ethanol, and cutting the massive corn subsidies from the Federal government. Barack Obama supports producing ethanol from corn, and continuing corn subsidies to ensure the price of corn stays low.

McCain

John McCain Believes Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline And As A Means of Expanding Consumers' Choices. Some choices such as ethanol are on the market right now. The second generation of alcohol-based fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which won't compete with food crops, are showing great potential.

Today, Isolationist Tariffs And Wasteful Special Interest Subsidies Are Not Moving Us Toward An Energy Solution. We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs.

Senator McCain supports biofuels, but not a continuation of our current policy. He would end massive corn subsidies, and place the focus on cellustic ethanol production with would reduce the impact of corn based ethanol production on food costs.

Obama
Barack Obama has little to nothing to say about ethanol on the “energy and environment” section of his website. He mentions biofuels time and time again, but leaves the specifics out of how exactly he would produce the ethanol.

Senator Obama comes from Illinois, one of the leading corn producing states in the nation, as the table shows below. One can imagine that his historical support for producing ethanol from corn is at least partly a result of his states reliance on corn for its economy. It’s unclear what he would do as president, but his voting record clearly suggests that he supports federal subsidies for corn and the production of ethanol from corn.

Table. Corn yield by state in 1,000 of bushels. Data from 2004, from the Center for Transportation Analysis at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

This article from msnbc, scroll down from to the “fact file” and click on energy in the environment, states that Obama would:

“Expand federal requirements for ethanol from 36 million gallons to 60 million gallons a year with increase coming from non-corn sources.”

The Case for Ethanol
Portability. As a society we will likely need a liquid fuel supply to support our transportation system. Generation of alcohol from biomass is a great way of generating liquid fuel. No other alternative energy sources produce liquid fuel (others produce electricity).

Energy Independence. The Great Plains of America produce, not surprisingly, lots of grains. Biofuels represent an excellent way to reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy.

The Case Against Ethanol
Using Food for Fuel. Americans are used to inexpensive food. Using food products that are widely used in commercial food preparation negatively affects the average American, as reflected in increasing food costs.

Celluistic Ethanol Production. The way to go in producing fuel from biomass is likely through transformation of waste biomass, like corn husks. These are products that are not used as food, thus it would not increase food prices.

Government Subsidies The government provides massive subsidies, in the form of payments and tax breaks to corn farmers. While well intended, this policy is not helping small farmers, and has focused nearly all of our efforts on producing biofuels from corn, which may not be the best source for such fuels.

Low Energy Yields Corn based ethanol is lower in energy yield than sugar cane based ethanol. Put another way, it takes more corn to produce enough energy for your car than other potential fuels. Switchgrass and sugar cane are better materials from which to produce ethanol. The federal government needs to fund research on these other crops, and reduce corn subsidies so if these crops are superior, they can exert their economic superiority in the free market.

Producing Fertilizer. Corn requires massive quantities of fertilizer and water irrigation to grow. Fertilizer requires fossil fuels to be produced. In effect we are using fossil fuels to produce biofuels, which does not help us achieve energy independence or reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We need to utilize crops that require less fertilizer and less water irrigation to make biofuels economically and environmentally feasible.

Over Fertilization. Massive fertilization of corn leads to fertilizer running off the surface in stream water, and ultimately to the Mississippi River. This leads to the grow of marine algae in the River, which eventually die. As they die they are respired, consuming oxygen. This oxygen is not available to marine organisms like fish and shrimp. This is known as eutrophication and is negatively affecting the fishing industry along the Gulf Coast.

In the picture below you can see lifeless, low-oxygen water pouring out of the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. A major reason for this low oxygen content is over fertilization of fields for corn harvesting. Image source: NASA.

Conclusion: Both candidates favor increasing the quantity of biofuels available for American consumption. However, Senator John McCain has the superior proposal for biofuels. Senator McCain stresses the use of cellusistic ethanol, which would not place a burden on our food system. Senator McCain would eliminate corn subsidies, which make for an uneven playing field. As a nation we need to develop a biofuel that is sustainable, and energy rich. Government subsidies are providing a massive advantage to corn, which means our nation may grow to depend on an inferior fuel source. Let the free market determine what the best biofuel source is. Here Senator Barack Obama is potentially sending our nation down a perilous path, with his continued subsidies for corn.

Wind and Solar Power

Positions:
A better discussion of the issue than I can present is presented here at factcheck.org.

Both candidates have expressed large vocal support for wind and solar power. Wind and solar power have been stressed more by Senator Obama, than Senator McCain, who prefers nuclear and coal technology in the short term. Senator Obama has voted consistently in favor of wind and solar power in the senate, whereas Senator McCain has missed a number of key votes on the subject.

Obama:

Ten-year, $150 billion fund for biofuels, wind, solar, plug-in hybrids, clean-coal technology and other "climate-friendly" measures.

Senator Obama lays out a clear plan for developing these technologies.

McCain:
Senator McCain talks a great game about wind and solar power, but his policy page doesn’t have much to say about how exactly he would implement them. He has also not supported these energy sources in the senate, missing a number of key votes on the issue. This is surprising to me given how much Arizona and their abundant sunshine would benefit from increased solar power technology.

Case for Wind & Solar
Environmentally Friendly. These options are the most environmentally friendly option of producing energy as they do not produce any greenhouse gasses.

It’s Necessary. If not today, in 10 years or 20 years we’re going to need these sources of energy as our domestic oil and gas reserves dwindle, and the global price of oil and gas increase. Whomever wins the election, the next president will sign an international agreement limiting carbon dioxide emissions, and we will need these technologies to be producing large portions of our energy.

Green Economy. As a nation we must develop solar and wind technology faster than China, India and Europe. Over the next 50 years the global energy economy will shift towards these sources, and its in our best interests to be an exporter of this technology, and be able to manufacture such components.

Case Against Wind & Solar
Technology. The technology for generating electricity from solar energy is lacking, and needs to be developed. Wind technology has improved by leaps and bounds in the past 10 years, but more improvements can be made. The government needs to invest in research on wind and solar to ensure America remains a technology leader.

Infrastructure. As previously discussed in the blog, where the greatest wind and solar power potential is, our national electric grid is unable to handle the energy generated. The next president will have to spend federal funds improving the grid if wind and solar power are to be developed.

Conclusions Senator Obama’s proposal is a good start, but does not go far enough in my opinion. Wind and solar power provide energy we can generate domestically for eternity. We need to develop these technologies. Senator McCain’s proposal is lacking in specifics. His voting record is not strong on this issue.

Okay, today the candidates split the issues, McCain has a better biofuel plan and Obama has a better alternative energy plan.

Tomorrow, we’ll check in on how the candidates plan to fund science research.

Election 2008: Non-Renewable Energy

2008-10-29T15:30:00.010-04:00

Non-Renewable Energy Policy

It’s usually easy to identify the candidate who has sounder environmental policy, scroll to the Democratic ticket row of your voting machine, and pull the lever. But not this year. It’s a crazy political year, I daresay. Red is blue, blue is red and up is down. The Republicans have nominated a senator who proposed the first legislation to fight global warming and the Democrats have nominated a senator who has made his support of coal and nuclear power a major portion of his energy bill. In my opinion neither candidate would be an environmental disaster, which is a stark change from the past few elections. Both candidates have good environmental records, and we owe it to them to consider their policy in detail. With that in mind, let’s take a close look at the candidates environmental policy on Non-Renewable Energy. I think there are a lot of things we could talk about, but in the interest of time we’re going to focus on coal burning, nuclear energy and off-shore drilling.

I’ve already talked about the difference between alternative and renewable fuels, but here is how we define a renewable fuel.

A renewable energy source is one that the fuel or energy source is rejuvenated quicker by natural processes than we consume the fuel.

As such all fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) are non-renewable. As is nuclear power, as the fuel (uranium or plutonium) does not regenerate.

Coal Burning

The positions: Both candidates support additional development of coal fueled energy.

McCain: McCain says:

John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies. Coal produces the majority of our electricity today. Some believe that marketing viable clean coal technologies could be over 15 years away. John McCain believes that this is too long to wait, and we need to commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology. Once commercialized, the U.S. can then export these technologies to countries like China that are committed to using their coal - creating new American jobs and allowing the U.S. to play a greater role in the international green economy.

The McCain-Palin website mistakenly identifies coal use as a both “clean” and an “alternative” energy source. Coal energy is neither clean nor it is an alternative energy source as it is a fossil fuel.

McCain has expressed steady support for coal technology through the years. This position is fairly popular with the large American oil companies, who have strongly supported McCain this election cycle. If McCain wins the election there is no doubt that coal energy will be a major point in his energy policy.

It is unclear from his policy point if this coal energy development would be subject to McCain’s proposed market driven cap-and-trade system for carbon credits (we will discuss this in the future).

Obama:

Whereas McCain professes unwavering support of coal energy, Obama appears to be tying his support of coal into the development and deployment of clean coal technology. Coal use would also be subject to regulation from the carbon permit trading program.

Obama appears particularly interested in developing technologies that convert coal to oil or gas. This application is also strongly supported by the U.S. military.

The case for coal:
Abundance. Both candidates favor “clean coal technology” as a major part of their energy plan. A major reason for such thinking is our abundant energy reserves of coal could make coal an excellent way to achieve energy independence. At our current consumption rates, it is estimated that we have well over 100 years of coal reserves in North America, as opposed to about 15 years of oil and 50 years of natural gas.

Infrastructure. We have the infrastructure in place to utilize our coal reserves. There are many, many coal burning power plants (especially east of the Mississippi). No federal funds would be required to continue using coal, and industry has plenty of economic incentive to invest in additional coal plants because the energy is so cheap.

It’s cheap. Because it’s so abundant and we have the infrastructure in place, coal energy will produce cheap energy, which is a very important factor given today’s economy.

Swing States. The table below shows that a number of the major coal producing states are considered in play by both candidates. By my estimation West Virginia (#2), Pennsylvania (#4), Montana (#5), Colorado (#7), Indiana (#8) and North Dakota (#10) are all being actively campaigned in by both sides, and all of these states are major coal producers.

Table. Coal production by state in 2007. Coal production in thousands of short tons. Data taken from the Department of Energy. States of interest highlighted in red.

Home State Influence. Senators Biden and Obama (IL - #9) both come from states where coal is an important industry, and thus are under tremendous pressure to support it in the senate. (Little known fact, Joe Biden grew up in Scranton, PA., they really should talk about that more.) Senator McCain represents Arizona which is the #18 coal producing state, and Governor Palin hails from Alaska which is then #22 coal producing state.

The Case Against Coal:
Coal is filthy. Coal is the dirtiest form of energy available to man for consumption. Burning coal produces ash (particulate matter) which possess a major threat to human health. Burning coal produces air born mercury, which is highly toxic and accumulates in fish before humans consume it. Burning coal produces loads of sulfur dioxide, which in the presence of water vapor in the atmosphere produces acid rain. Burning coal produces nitrogen dioxide, which contributes greatly to ozone formation, which is a major air pollutant.

Coal mining is environmentally unsound. The process by which coal is removed from the Earth is terribly dangerous to coal mine workers. The process by which coal is removed from the Earth is incredibly environmentally destructive to the mountains from which it is removed, often as a product of strip mining, which can lead to acid mine drainage into local waterways.

Clean Coal Technology. First of a definition. Clean coal technology is any technology that reduces the quantity of pollution produced from coal burning. The most common form of "clean" coal technology is scrubbers, which remove fly ash from coal plants. Clean coal technology isn’t actually clean. Today, clean coal technology reduces the amount of fly ash (and other particulate), mercury (and other toxic metals), and to a lesser extent reduces the amount of sulfur dioxide (leads to acid rain) and nitrogen oxides (leads to ozone formation) produced from coal burning. However, today these “clean” coal technologies do not remove these pollutants from the emission process, just reduce them. Most of the time, even with “clean” coal technology coal burning plants still produce tremendous quantities of air pollutants, greatly exceeding that produced from natural gas.

Greenhouse Gasses. Coal burning produces prodigious quantities of carbon dioxide. As such coal burning is a major contributor to global warming, increasing especially quickly in China. Both McCain and Obama support investing in carbon sequestration, a process by which carbon dioxide is removed from the coal driven pollution, and returned to the ground. These technology has not yet been produced, and the environmental impacts of the sequestration is poorly known.

Portability. Coal burning produces energy for electricity, but is not used to produce fuels for transportation so it’s utility is somewhat limited at the current time.

Conclusion. I support neither candidates platform on this issue as both candidates support this environmentally unfriendly process. Obama attaches more conditions to the development of this energy source, but both would feature clean coal technology in their energy plan.

Nuclear Energy

The positions: Both candidates support additional development of nuclear energy.
Obama:

Obama supports development of nuclear power, but only after we have developed a system for handing the waste process. This position puts Obama at odds with his more liberal supporters, who in general strongly oppose the development of nuclear energy. He opposes the use of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a repository.

Illinois is home to many nuclear reactors, six plants with a total of 11 reactors. This no doubt impacts Senator Obama’s position on the issue.

McCain:

John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.

McCain expresses unwavering support for nuclear energy. He proposes constructing 45 new nuclear plants by 2030. This number is thought by engineers to be unreasonable, as there are no industrial facilities in the United States presently capable of constructing commercial nuclear power facilities. Also, at present the United States does not have sufficient nuclear engineers needed to run 45 additional nuclear power plants. Senator McCain supports use of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a repository of spent fuel.

Arizona is home to a nuclear plant, with three reactors. Arizona has a large portion of our nation’s uranium ore. Development of nuclear power would likely provide a boost to the Arizona economy.

The Case for Nuclear:
The Only Alternative. Nuclear power at the present time represents the only alternative fuel capable of meeting America’s electric power consumption at the present time. It may be a viable short term solution between now, and when alternative, renewable energy sources (i.e. wind, solar, tides, geothermal…) are available and technically feasible.

It’s safer. Technological developments have made nuclear energy safer than ever. Reactors used at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island are now obsolete and have been replaced with much safer designs.

The Case Against Nuclear Energy:
Cost. Nuclear energy is significantly more expensive than energy produced from fossil fuels, and even some alternatives.

NIMBY. Not in my backyard. It is very difficult to find a location for a nuclear power plant, since no communities want to take on the risk of nuclear incidence.

Nuclear Waste. Upon use, nuclear fuel produces a radioactive waste stream. At the current time, the United States has no central location to handle nuclear waste. Instead it is stored at the site of the nuclear power plant. This represents a security and health risk. It would be advisable to store all nuclear waste in a central location that could be monitored, and the nuclear waste health impacts limited to a small location.

Lacking Infrastructure. When fuel is used in a nuclear power plant, a percentage of the fuel that is produced as waste is recoverable and could be used as reprocessed fuel in the future. At present, this excess fuel is dumped in with the waste fuel and not recovered. The United States needs to develop a central re-processing plan to handle this nuclear fuel, and recover as much usable fuel as possible, if we are to develop nuclear energy on a federal level.

Transport of Waste. Even if the United States develops a central repository and reprocessing center, many states have regulations forbidding the transportation of nuclear waste through their borders. A safe transportation system would have to be developed.

Nuclear Proliferation. Even though the threat of global nuclear winter has been reduced, regional nuclear wars are still possible (i.e. India-Pakistan). Increasing the number of nuclear plants increases our countries ability to produces new nuclear weapons, which may be an obstacle to the bi-lateral weapon reduction program we are entered in with Russia.

Yucca Mountain. The United States has spent a tremendous amount of money developing Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository. There is some debate as to whether or not Yucca Mountain is a safe place to store nuclear waste, due to the possibilities of earthquakes in the region.

Conclusion: Despite the risk, I am personally strongly in favor of additional utilization of nuclear energy. I realize this is not the popular environmental sentiment, but I believe the risk can be minimized, and positive from the reduction in greenhouse gasses outweighs the negative. Both candidates agree with my position. I prefer Senator Obama’s proposal because it includes a comprehensive discussion of the need to develop a repository and reprocessing plant, which would be vital if our nation moves in that direction.

Off Shore Drilling

The positions: Unlike the previous two energy possibilities, the two candidates differ strongly on this issue. Senator McCain has expressed strong support for off-shore drilling. Senator Obama has tepid support for it, and appears to intend to use it as leverage to get his energy legislation advanced.

McCain: “Drill, baby, drill.”

John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41% of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.

Senator McCain strongly supports the exploitation of marine resources for the production of domestic oil. This is in strong contrast to his senatorial voting record where he has voted against his party on the exploitation of ANWAR.

Governor Palin is in strong favor of development of oil reserves off-shore and in Alaska.

Obama:

Obama appears to be pandering to public support of offshore oil development. His written policy supports development of these oil reserves in a limited capacity and only as part of a larger energy plan that includes alternative fuels.

Both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have voted against drilling in ANWAR.

The Case for Offshore Drilling:
None. There is no good reason to increase offshore drilling.

The Case Against for Offshore Drilling:
It won’t help soon. Oil from offshore drilling won’t arrive for 7 to 10 years, and will represent only a fraction of our oil consumption.

It won’t appreciably reduce the cost of fuel. The economic impacts of this additional oil income would be on the order of cents per gallon of gasoline.

False promises. A number of proponents of offshore drilling are suggesting that there is more oil present than what government studies performed in the 1970’s estimated was present. Likely the amount of oil reserves lies somewhere in between the two ranges of numbers.

The figure below shows proven oil reserves off the coast. The additional oil that will be tapped is a very small fraction of that which we are already drilling for. It would represent a drop in the bucket. The data for this figure is from the Department of the Interior, but I'm not sure exactly where this figure is taken. Please advise if you know the proper citation.

Addition Feeding. The U.S. reserves represent somewhere between 2% and 3% of the worlds oil supply. We consume 25% of the world’s oil use. Spending federal money to develop these supply only feeds our addiction, and will prolong our use of petroleum. We will not move towards producing alternative energies. This will prolong our addition to foreign oil, not sever it.

Environmental Impacts. Governor Palin’s famous quote about offshore oil drilling been clean and safe is untrue and unfounded. During both Hurricane Ike and Katrina large quantities of oil were released, entering the marine environment, causing extensive damage.

Conclusion: Neither candidate professes an environmentally friendly perspective on offshore oil development. Senator McCain’s policy represents a much greater threat to the environment than Senator Obama’s policy, however neither is ideal.

Tomorrow, we will move onto the candidates positions on alternative energies.

Election Special

2008-10-28T17:00:00.003-04:00

So as promised, we’re about to begin our Election 2008 coverage here. We’re going to discuss the candidates stance on four issues, partly as decided by your votes:

Wednesday: Non-Renewable Energy
Thursday: Renewable Energy
Friday: Funding of Science and Science Research
Monday: Climate Change

Also on Monday, I’ll conclude with my endorsement of a candidate, based on their environmental policy.

So please check back over the next couple of days!

MLB Drops the Ball, Blames Meteorologists

2008-10-28T10:09:00.014-04:00

Don’t like the result of your decision? Blame science!

Major league baseball made a very poor decision and attempted to play a baseball game during a strengthening coastal storm and is now blaming faulty forecasts from weathermen for their poor decision.

(Last night at the World Series, Jason Werth couldn't quite make this catch at the wall, and Bud Selig couldn't quite read a radar. Image to right from yahoo, Photo by Brad Mangin/MLB via Getty Images)

Last night Game 5 of the World Series between the Tampa Bay ~~Devil~~ Rays and the Philadelphia Phillies was suspended in the sixth inning due to rain. This was a noteworthy moment as never before in the history of major league baseball had a world series baseball game been suspended in progress. Rapidly strengthening nor’easters are not to be trifled with, so it’s not surprise that the game wasn’t completed. Except to perhaps running major league baseball, who blamed the game suspension on poor weather forecasting. (Aside: Now you can see that I’ll take any excuse to write about baseball, as in realitly, I spend the majority of my days checking various excellent baseball blogs.)

Though Monday opened as an overcast but dry day in Philadelphia, the forecast grew progressively worse. The three meteorological agencies used by Major League Baseball all recommended to Selig at approximately 7:45 p.m. ET that there would be 1/10th of an inch of precipitation until midnight, and all parties involved voted to play.

"Given the weather forecast we had, and we had monitored it over and over again, it was a decision that we made," Selig said. "And obviously I made it with some significant trepidation, but had the forecast held, we would have been OK."

Rain began falling significantly in the fourth inning, and Selig met with the groundskeeper in the fifth inning. The sand-based field of Citizens Bank Park absorbs water well, but the condition deteriorated over the next 1 1/2 innings, prompting Welke to wave the teams off after the top of the sixth.

The only problem with mlb’s position is that the forecast was actually RIGHT, as reported by national weather online:

Commissioner, Bud Selig, cited faulty forecasts for the unfortunate premature halt of the game. He mentioned that the clearly erroneous forecasts had only called for a tenth of an inch of rain between 8 PM and midnight. For most who won't check their facts, this sounds like an atrocious error by meteorologists! But, a check of the numbers yields .13" of rain by the time the game was called. Though this means there was an error of three hundredths of an inch of rain at that time - and ten hundredths of an inch of rain by midnight when the official amount was .23" of rain, many would agree that's a pretty darn good precipitation forecast.

The weather forecast for last night called for a strengthening nor’easter to start blowing up the East Coast. Anyone who lives along the Atlantic knows that when a nor’easter is getting going, it’s a good night to stay inside with a warm drink and a nice book. Needless to say I was shocked when the game started last night. I was actually tuned into Monday night football instead of the world series because I assumed that the game was canceled. And so did Joe Posnanski:

They never should have started the game. That was obvious from early Monday evening, when a light rain began to mist in Philadelphia. The weather radars, at least according to a local weatherman who was on television in the press box, showed that a hard and cold rain was gonna fall. The TV meteorologist said that rain would start falling right around 10 p.m. Eastern time. That figured to be right around the fourth or fifth inning.

Let’s take a look at those radar images to see if we can notice anything ominous looming.

Here is the radar at 7pm, when Bud and crew were sitting around chatting about whether or not to play the game. An expansive region of light to moderate rain sits just off to the west moving slowly towards the east. Only 5 to 10 miles west of Philadelphia, a narrow filament of moderate rain appears to be building. And according to surface observations, it’s already raining in Philadelphia.

Now it’s 8pm. It’s raining lightly. Just about time for the game to start. The narrow filament of moderate rain sits just to the west of Philadephia. This filament continues to grow slowly. The large swath of light rain has moved a bit further east, now almost connecting with the narrow filament. It’s clear now that this rain will reach Philadelphia in the next hour or so. The area of rain is large, and slowly growing more intense. There is no reason to expect the rain will end anytime soon. Why start the baseball game?

Now it’s 9pm. It’s raining lightly, with a temperature of 45 F. The heavier filament of rain has pulled off to the north, which is good news. However, now the entire Philadelphia region is encompassed in the light rain shield that has moved in from the west, with heavier rain off to the southwest, slowly moving towards the ballpark. It’s not going to get any better from this point out.

Now it’s 10pm. The rain has picked up a bit in intensity, and the temperature is down to 43. The metro region is encompassed in a band of moderate rain, with more off to the southwest to come. Shortly after this Bud and company cancel the game.

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing, and you don’t need three weather forecasting firms to tell you that it was going to rain more and more in Philadelphia last night. It was obvious to anyone paying attention that it was a lousy night in Philadelphia for baseball. Give us a break here. The game should not have been played.

The talking heads, baseball’s apologists on ESPN, had a slightly different take on the events:

“There’s nothing they could have done any different.” – Peter Gammons

“Are we going to see some snow on Tuesday?” – Karl Ravech
“We might!” – Tim Kurkjian

Is there hope for the rest of the world series? Here’s what mlb has to say about today (Tuesday’s forecast):

Bob DuPuy, Major League Baseball's chief operating officer, made comments after tonight's game: "The weather tomorrow is supposed to be worse."

Where are you getting that from Bob? As of 9am this morning the worst was over in Philadelphia and all that remained was a bit of light rain on the west side of the storm, that should pull out by noon or so.

Sorry Bud! This one is on you Bud, just like with the '94 strike, and the '02 all star game. You made a poor decision, accept it and don't blame weathermen.

Happy Yom Kippur!

2008-10-09T09:16:00.003-04:00

Not sure what that horn thing is on the right, but I think it has something to do with Yom Kippur. The Jews for Jesus website wouldn't sue me for using their picture, would they?

I hope that you are enjoying Yom Kippur, which translated from Hebrew to English reads (from right to left) as the period during which every year Owen goes camping. While you are reading this, I am either on my way to or in the Catskills with some friends, hiking up and down mountains, and probably being rained on, since it always rains when I’m camping. If you are an academic advisor and you are reading this, please don’t think I’m lazy, Friday will be my 7th day taken off from work all year.

One thing that anyone who cares about the environment should appreciate about New York is the amazing amount of land that is in preserves and parkland in our great state. The Catskills and the Adirondack Park are massive reserves of land (the Adirondack Park is comparable in size to the entire State of Vermont and Catskill Park is about ½ the size of the State of Delaware for comparison), much of which is open to hiking and camping.

On this trip, some friends and I are hoping to climb two more firetowers in the Catskills. The Catskill’s are old mountains, and as such the summits have been rounded by erosion over the years. As such many mountains lack scenic vistas, taking away somewhat of the splendor of the mountains. Luckily on five mountains in the Catskills there are firetowers that extend high above the treeline, which have recently been restored and are open for climbers to use.

So far my friends and I have conquered Basalm Lake and Red Hill. This trip I am hoping to climb both Hunter (the highest) and Mt. Tremper. We’ll see if there is enough time for both.

For those who can dedicate more time to hiking and climbing there is a climbers challenge put on by the Adirondack Club to climb 18 fire towers in the Adirondacks and all 5 in the Catskills. So far, I’ve done 2 of 5 in the Catskills and only Bald Moutain (aka Roundaxe) in the Adirondacks.

I’ll let you know how it goes. In the meantime, enjoy pictures from last years trip where we climbed Red Hill.

The "ranger station" on Red Hill

The Red Hill fire tower

View from atop the tower!

It was a real humid day so visibility was limited. Otherwise you could see for 50 miles or further.

Why Write a Science Blog?

2008-10-08T08:33:00.003-04:00

You may ask, “Owen why are writing a blog on environmental issues?” Easily, you could also not ask that question. I don’t really care if you ask the question or not, I’m going to tell you either way why I’m doing this.

First, it seems like most people who inform the public about the environment are biased. A majority of reporting comes from non-profit organizations with stated environmental objectives. Even governmental organizations report of what they’ve done or hope to do, not what’s important. A minority of reporting on the environment comes from objective media outlets, like newspapers.

Secondly, science and environmental blogs are rare, compared with other academic and societal disciplines. Here is what I wrote in my Schubel Fellowship application about the need for science blogs.

According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, in 2006, 39% of Internet users or 57 million Americans read blogs regularly, a number that is growing rapidly. However, Americans looking for a scientific perspective on topical environmental issues may be out of luck. While blogs about politics, business and sports are abundant, blogs about science are exceedingly rare, and blogs about environmental science even rarer. Furthermore, in a preliminary search for environmental blogs I found that the majority of environmental blogs had a strong geopolitical bias in one direction or another and were authored either by individuals or non-government organizations with well documented biases. At present there are no blogs focusing on Long Island’s environment. There is a need for a subjective scientific discussion of key environmental issues that the public can trust, especially one that discusses environmental issues on a local level.

I would like to create such a blog, with the intentions of updating it about three times a week. The blog would focus on environmental issues affecting the New York metropolitan region, but many of the blog articles would be general as to attract a much larger crowd. I would like to keep a healthy mix of environmental theory (e.g. population growth, global energy needs and sources), discussion of basic scientific facts about topical environmental issues, local environmental issues (e.g. Broadwater, The Long Island Wind Farm) and major research findings that have environmental impacts (highlighting in particular work done by SoMAS personnel). As is traditional in the world of blogging, the created blog would link to a number of outside blogs, journalistic articles and academic articles, thus not only connecting the general populous with my take on the issues, but encompassing the broad scientific consensus.

Third, it seems like the people reporting on science, aren’t necessarily the experts on the issues they are writing about. While I’m far from an expert, a bachelor and masters degree along with a few years of graduate school does give me a bit of insight into a lot of issues, that I’d like to share.

Fourth, most scientists communicate poorly with the public. I am hoping to have a career in science at some point in the near future, and I’d like to be able to successfully communicate my research results with the public. While my writing so far has been relatively poor, with most subjects poorly described (wait what valley? There’s a city in the valley?!?), full of grammatical errors and poorly constructed metaphors, I am hoping to get better an improve my written communication. To that effect, consider yourself guinea pigs.

Fifthly, sometimes the public needs a translator from “science research talk” to “plain English.” Often with good intentions many authors can do good research that is completely incomprehensible to the public. (See as an example the image to the right, which is a figure in a scientific journal article summarizing how science blogs work). I’d like to do my part in translating good work from “science” to “English” so the public can use the research (because what are we doing science research for if not for improving the quality of life for everyone).

Lastly, I think the general public really wants to understand science. I truly believe it. Many people have a negative perspective on science research because they feel like scientists are talking down to them or that scientists are coming up with nonsense because they don’t understand how scientists could do the research they perform. Or perhaps the public doesn’t have a good grasp of basic environmental science theory, and misinterprets results.

I bring up this point because of a scientific paper that Lee forwarded to me sometime last month. The article entitled “The roles, reasons and restrictions of science blogs” by Dr. John S. Wilkins, a philosopher from the University of Queensland in Australia, discusses the role of science blogs in society and in science academia today. (It should be noted here that Dr. Wilkins himself is a blogger, so his views may come from his own personal experiences.) It’s a very interesting read and I encourage all you loyal readers out there to download it and take a gander.

Dr. Wilkins, first describes what a science blog is and who typically does this blogging:

A blog is fundamentally a continuously updated web page, with entries (‘posts’) that have date, time and, if many authors contribute to the blog, author-name stamps (Figure 1). Each post may be commented upon by the readership, and the discussions can range from a few humorous one-liners to complex and well-written rebuttals or contributions, and everything in between. Blogs typically have a general theme, and most blogs are personal diaries organized around these. Many are focused on single issues, such as politics, religion or scientific topics. Science blogs are blogs whose main focus or intent is disseminating or commenting upon science.

Many science bloggers are graduate students, but a number are practicing teachers and researchers. It is unclear so far how the scientific and educational communities regard blogging. Some graduate students and early career researchers have complained that they are being told by advisors and supervisors to stop blogging and concentrate on ‘real’ work, whereas others have drafted up later-published papers on their blogs, and taken advantage of an informed and enthusiastic readership for critique and suggestions. At times, readers offer references the author might not have found otherwise, especially from cross-disciplinary fields. In this article, I argue that there are also many other reasons for scientists to enter the blogosphere.

Here is a short list of motivation Dr. Wilkins gives for scientists having personal science blogs:
• Blogs are “intimate and responsive,” often addressing recent publications nearly immediately, offering a response very different than hyped up press releases.
• Science blogs are a mechanism by which to “demythologize science”. If those writing about science are the ones performing it, they are best able to discuss the manner by which research was done and what the limitations of the work are.
• Bloggers are able to identify science politics, and make clear to readers why some research is covered by traditional media in the way that it is covered.

Dr. Wilkins also notes that there are certain benefits to blogging, that I greatly appreciated reading:
• That blogs, if archived can represent a history of the evolution of scientific thoughts and knowledge on a particular issue.
• That bloggers can bridge the ever growing gap between science and humanities, and in some cases lead to policy changes by making clear to those outside of science (i.e. politicians) what the practical results of government spending on research may be.

Blogging also has personal benefits for the blogger. A blog that represents a scientific community or subdiscipline will become a community in itself. Through back-channel forums, personal contacts, and commenting, an isolated researcher can become part of a wider social network. Occasionally, conferences result, such as the North Carolina Science Blogging Conference (http://www.scienceblogging.com) that has now been held twice. And science bloggers can even find jobs via their blogging. At least three members of the blog community at the Seed Magazine Science Blogs (http://scienceblogs.com) have reported that they have been offered or gained positions partly on the basis of their science blogging.

Not all things blogging are a positive to Dr. Wilkins he notes:

There are also downsides to blogging. Quality control, rewriting and editing are usually lacking, and some blogs that purport to be science based are often merely apologetics for pseudoscience or quack medicine, especially when issues are politically charged (e.g. anti-global warming, anti vaccination, creationism, homeopathy and so on). Many blogs also act as ‘vanity publishing,’ that is, self-serving outlets for ideas the author is unable to get past peer review. Blogs fall prey to the same failures as websites in general, with much of the ‘information’ being false or one-sided. For example, if you google ‘evolution,’ most of the top hits are creationist sites such as the Discovery Institute.

This blog was recently a victim of such “fake science” when someone put a link in the comments to an anonymous web-blog that seemed to evoke an extremely anti-scientific tone.

Dr. Wilkins concludes with:

In conclusion, blogging remains an individualistic, sometimes anarchistic and convention-breaking form of communication. There are gems in the rough, but there will always be a lot of rough. Sites that continue to deliver interesting reports will tend to survive, but ultimately it is up to each blog reader to find the blogs they like and trust. The academic research and teaching communities for science and related fields need to see blogging as more than a casual hobby, as core outreach for their science. It is an effective way for scientists to counter the misunderstandings, deliberate and otherwise, of popular culture. Not only graduate students, but more tenured professionals, need to engage in this to ensure that their science, and the science of others, is in the public eye (for an example, see Massimo Pigliucci’s blog at http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com). In this way, we can ensure that the quality of the science that is communicated to the public is high, while the personality of working scientists humanizes science.

There is a certain irony to Dr. Wilkins journal article, that I find most humorous. While describing how and why science blogs should exist, he relies on antiquated science article clichés, including a flow chart (see image above, and an aside box in which he describes how to start a blog like a physicist describes the methodology of their experiment).

No matter how you look at it, we need young scientists to get out on the web and write about science in ways that their peers could understand. If anyone out there wants to write an “editorial” or “letter to the editor” on this blog, we’d love to share your thoughts. If anyone out there wants to start your own blog, we’d love to give you a link and a shoutout to get people reading your stuff. Those articulate folks in the shadows, step out and share your knowledge and love of science with the rest of us!

Peer to Peer Lecture Tonight

2008-10-07T13:03:00.003-04:00

Chris Mims, who founded Science Blogs which is the most read science blog on the interwebs will be speaking at Stony Brook University as part of the Peer to Peer Lecture series, which focuses on science communication. The lecture will be at the Wang Center in Stony Brook University in Lecture Hall #1 at 6pm tonight, if you happen to be in the region. Mr. Mims talk will be on new and emerging media and is entitled, "If new media were an ecosystem, it would be the Amazon." Definitely worth checking out if you have the time.

Whales observed in New York Harbour

2008-10-07T07:15:00.005-04:00

Humpback whale at right, image courtesy NOAA

Anyone up for a whale watch? Let’s hop on the circle liner sometime soon and do a tour of New York Harbor and see what we see.

Whales capture the human imagination. Whales are large, intelligent and hideously ugly beasts of the sea. As a species we have written about whales, drawn whales, hunted whales, watched whales and now today we are protecting whales. Part of the majesty of whales is their mystery. Where do whales live, travel, eat and breed? How many are left? How likely is it that whales will still exist in 2100 or 2200? Everyday we are learning more and more about whales, yet we still know very little.

Recently, it was discovered that Humpback, Fin and North Atlantic Right Whales all reside near or travel near New York Harbor. In addition to the Times article linked previously, the story was also covered on NPR (click on the red speaker like button on the NPR webpage to listen to their story).

Fin whale, at right. Image courtesy of NOAA.

“To me, it’s extraordinary,” Dr. Clark said. “People wouldn’t think of going out of New York harbor to see whales.”

Of course, scientists knew that whales were passing by somewhere off New York. The endangered northern right whales migrate between New England and Florida each year, but scientists did not know if the migration route hugged the coastline or if the whales took the straight-line route from Rhode Island to Cape Hattaras via the deep ocean. “There has been a real gap in our knowledge,” Dr. Clark said.

The Cornell researchers and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation collaborated on a project that placed three recorders 13 miles from the harbor and seven more off Fire Island from March to June.

Dr. Clark put the data on the computer and started listening.

“It was like, bingo, we’ve got whales,” Dr. Clark said.

Not just a few, either. Right whales were migrating past the microphones during all three months. Not just right whales, either. Humpbacks were also passing by, and fin whales appear to be residing in the area. “We basically have fin whale singers basically 24/7 off New York Harbor,” Dr. Clark said. “That was a surprise.”

The researchers also heard blue whales, minke whales and sei whales.

These findings are important for a number of reasons. All three species of whale found in great abundance are considered to be endangered species, and shipping routes in the harbor may put these creatures at risk. By learning more about where these whales live, travel, feed and breed we can help identify regions of coastal waters that need to be protected. It’s also an important finding because it captures the imagination of New Yorkers. Perhaps people will think a bit more about the waters that surround the great city knowing that whales populate the waters that most take for granted.

For more information about monitoring of whale activities, check out this website.

North Atlantic Right Whale, at right. Image courtesy of NOAA.

The previous two posts have discussed offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. A good argument for proceeding cautiously with respect to drilling is that we don’t yet know enough about the ocean to accurately assess the potential harm of offshore drilling. (That and we don’t know how much oil or gas is actually out there, and how much it would reduce the costs of energy for consumers.) The finding of whale populations around New York City is a reminder of how little we know about the ocean. How can we asses the risk of erecting oil rigs along our continental shelves when we still do not know what the effects of such an erection might be?

Register to vote

2008-10-06T10:54:00.004-04:00

Are you registered to vote yet? If not, you need to act now! The deadline to register to vote is October 10th in New York State. All registration forms must be postmarked on October 10th and received by your county board of elections by October 15th. Registering is quick and easy, all you need is a printer, an envelope and a stamp.

Follow this link to learn more. You'll need to download a pdf, print it, fill it out and put it in the mail by this weekend.

http://www.elections.state.ny.us/Voting.html#RegisterVote

Once you register, you will receive notice of your polling place by mail. This is the location at which you will cast your vote.

On a completely unrelated note, one of the vice presidential candidates shoots wolves from helicopters for fun! You can argue about the ethics of shooting wildlife from aircraft all you like, but the scary thing is how easily Sarah Palin ignores the advice of scientists, scientists armed with data, to go along with a politically popular idea.

Seriously people you need to register to vote.

When NIMBY meets Drill Baby Drill

2008-10-06T07:00:00.000-04:00

What happens when an irresistible force meets and immovable object?

“Drill, Baby, Drill” is the Republican rally call for extensive exploration of continental shelves for additional oil and natural gas resources, and eventually construction of offshore platforms to extract these fossil fuels from the depths. “Drill, Baby, Drill” is gaining traction nationally with many conservative and moderate voters who would like America to become energy independent, or non-reliant upon foreign nations for our energy needs.

Take a peek at the crowd response at this year’s Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Certainly energy independence is a great goal for the United States to achieve in the next 10 years. Drilling for offshore oil is obviously popular with the American people. But also popular with the American people are clean, beautiful oceans. Citizens of coastal regions are also quite protective of their ocean views, sometimes voting down offshore windfarm proposals that could reduce their property values. Will voters change their support for offshore oil and gas drilling when it’s their backyard ocean and harbors that are being drilled in?

There is precedence for such a switch in support. Environmentally minded folks refer to this phenomena as NIMBY, or Not In My BackYard.

The Philadelphia Inquirer looks into the possibility of offshore drilling off the coast of New Jersey. The results of their inquiries suggest that local residents are not suffering from a case of NIMBY when it comes to something that could* affect gas prices.

A 62 percent majority of likely New Jersey voters polled this month by Quinnipiac University Polling Institute said they favored drilling in protected offshore areas.

An even higher percentage of Jersey Shore voters - 70 percent - supported lifting the ban, polling spokesman Pat Smith said. The poll released yesterday did not ask specifically about drilling off the New Jersey coast.

Look, I’m not here to argue the merits and flaws of offshore drilling**. All I’m trying to say here is that, people are really supportive of the idea, even those who would most likely be negatively affected by such activities. This strong sentiment, that of keeping gas prices as low as possible, regardless of the environmental costs is just something that people and politicians need to keep in mind.

* - You know it could affect gas prices, in like 10 years or so.

** - But just for the record, offshore drilling is in my opinion not worth the risk right now. We don’t yet know the environmental impacts of the construction of offshore oil rigs. We’ll have to invest a lot of resources into offshore exploration, to find the reserves. Then we will have to construct new infrastructure to extract the oil and natural gas. By the time we get a steady flow of oil and natural gas, it will be 10 years later, and oil prices will likely be outrageously high. Additionally, the amount of energy we get from such an endeavor will be very small compared to our consumption rate.

Additionally, if we do invest in offshore drilling infrastructure, we will be committing a tremendous amount of money into something that will probably only be viable for a short period of time. There is a limited amount of fossil fuels off the US coast, and it is not likely to meet our energy needs for a long duration of time. Instead, doesn’t it make sense to start investing in alternative energies, technology that will work for the US forever?

V.P. Debate Remix

2008-10-03T09:21:00.005-04:00

Last night's much anticipated debate had only a few minutes of climate and environmental policy discussion. But for the sake of argument, let's take a look at how each of the debaters did.

Clean Coal Technology
Both candidates came out in strong favor of using clean coal technology to drive our energy policy in the next administration. Clean coal technology is an example of hard path energy policy, a policy that increases our use of fossil fuels in an attempt to meet energy demands.

Here is what Senator Biden had to say:

The way in which we can stop the greenhouse gases from emitting. We believe -- Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it.

If Senator Biden is imply that clean coal technology will reduce greenhouse gas emission, he’s wrong – dead wrong. If anything increasing the United States use of coal, will greatly increase our greenhouse gas emissions.

So let’s spend a minute or two discussing clean coal technology. So I’ve heard, it’s useful to use metaphors to describe science to large audiences. Well, clean coal technology is like putting lipstick on a pig…um wait, no that one has been used. Clean coal technology is filthy. Clean coal burning still produces amazingly large quantities of green house gasses. Clean coal technology is only clean when compared to coal burning, which is horrendously bad for the environment.

* Clean coal technology does not reduce the amount of CO2 emissions
* Clean coal technology does not reduce the amount of green house gasses produced from burning coal
* Clean coal technology does not reduce the impact of harmful strip mining for coal
* Clean coal technology is not an alternative fuel
*What clean coal technology does is reduce the quantity of fly ash and SO2 (sulphur dioxide) produced from the burning of coal
* Fly ash is a major constituent of particulate matter, small solid particles that float in the air and are harmful to human health
* Sulphur dioxide is a major constituent of acid rain
* Clean coal technology may or may not reduce the quantity of mercury emitted from coal burning
* Mercury is a toxic metal, which is quite harmful to human health

What clean coal technology is, is American. We have tons of coal. Literally, billions of tons of coal. It’s an energy supply that American has in spades. Too bad it’s dirtier than oil, dirtier than natural gas and not even in the same league as solar and wind power.

Climate Change
Ms. Palin had a few interesting things to say when it came to the causes of climate change:

I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.

But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

Once again Ms. Palin goes on the record as doubting that climate change is the result of man’s continual emission of CO2 and methane. Ms. Palin states that she wants to “positively affect the impacts,” and to be clear the only way to do this is to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gasses. But if you don’t believe that man has caused this problem by producing greenhouse gasses, how can you craft good policy to reduce said gasses?

Senator Biden follows up with a rather cogent point:

If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.

For contrast, what does Senator Biden accredit climate change to:

Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Governor Palin and Joe Biden.

That he goes on to say that clean coal is a way to address climate change is only a minor deduction compared to the major fault of not being able to assert that climate change is driven by man.

Clean Green Natural Gas?
Ms. Palin later refers to natural gas as “clean and green:”

They know that even in my own energy-producing state we have billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas. And we're building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline which is North America's largest and most you expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets.

Again, to clear up potential misconceptions, burning natural gas results in greenhouse gas emissions. Anytime you burn a fossil fuel; oil, coal or natural gas, you will produce greenhouse gasses. There is very little that is “green” about tapping into the Earth in environmentally sensitive ecosystems like the Arctic and sub-Arctic by drilling for oil and natural gas.

”Environmentally Friendly Drilling”
The debate increased in its intensity as the debaters discussed off-shore drilling. Off shore drilling is a potentially disastrous exploitation of resources on under-studied continental shelves.

Ms. Palin was not impressed with the Biden-Obama position on off-shore drilling.

Barack Obama and Senator Biden, you've said no to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in. You even called drilling -- safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore as raping the outer continental shelf.

There -- with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that. But also in that "all of the above" approach that Senator McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal.

I was surprised to hear you mention that because you had said that there isn't anything -- such a thing as clean coal. And I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.

There is a lot of hesitation to drill on continental shelves because we know far too little about these remote regions and their ecosystems to assess the impact that drilling would have on them. As a nation we have devoted precious little funding to ocean exploration and marine sciences research. I think this debate reminds us of how important it is to increase our knowledge of the oceans.

Oh and Ms. Palin, Senator Biden noted that there isn’t such a thing as clean coal because there is no such thing as clean coal. There is only slightly-less-filthy-but-still-loaded-in-greenhouse-gasses-coal.

Additional Resources and Transcript
Here are some additional resources for those of you interested in learning more about what the debaters had to say. The times had a good running blog of each question and the response from each debater. The Times also links to a blog reporting on clean coal and caps, which I haven’t had a chance to read yet but greatly look forward to reading.

What follows here is Biden and Palin’s brief discussion of climate and energy, from the vice presidential debate last night. The full transcript can be found here.

IFILL: Governor, I'm happy to talk to you in this next section about energy issues. Let's talk about climate change. What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?

PALIN: Yes. Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real.

I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.

But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

We have got to clean up this planet. We have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that.
As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We've got to reduce emissions. John McCain is right there with an "all of the above" approach to deal with climate change impacts.

We've got to become energy independent for that reason. Also as we rely more and more on other countries that don't care as much about the climate as we do, we're allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for. So even in dealing with climate change, it's all the more reason that we have an "all of the above" approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change.

IFILL: Senator, what is true and what is false about the causes?

BIDEN: Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Governor Palin and Joe Biden.

If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.

Now, let's look at the facts. We have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We consume 25 percent of the oil in the world. John McCain has voted 20 times in the last decade-and-a-half against funding alternative energy sources, clean energy sources, wind, solar, biofuels.

The way in which we can stop the greenhouse gases from emitting. We believe -- Barack Obama believes by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it.

China is building one to three new coal-fired plants burning dirty coal per week. It's polluting not only the atmosphere but the West Coast of the United States. We should export the technology by investing in clean coal technology.

We should be creating jobs. John McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, I guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill. Drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to begun to be drilled.

In the meantime, we're all going to be in real trouble.

IFILL: Let me clear something up, Senator McCain has said he supports caps on carbon emissions. Senator Obama has said he supports clean coal technology, which I don't believe you've always supported.

BIDEN: I have always supported it. That's a fact.

IFILL: Well, clear it up for us, both of you, and start with Governor Palin.

PALIN: Yes, Senator McCain does support this. The chant is "drill, baby, drill." And that's what we hear all across this country in our rallies because people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into. They know that even in my own energy-producing state we have billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas. And we're building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline which is North America's largest and most you expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets.
Barack Obama and Senator Biden, you've said no to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in. You even called drilling -- safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore as raping the outer continental shelf.

There -- with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that. But also in that "all of the above" approach that Senator McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal.

I was surprised to hear you mention that because you had said that there isn't anything -- such a thing as clean coal. And I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.

IFILL: We do need to keep within our two minutes. But I just wanted to ask you, do you support capping carbon emissions?

PALIN: I do. I do.

IFILL: OK. And on the clean coal issue?

BIDEN: Absolutely. Absolutely we do. We call for setting hard targets, number one...

IFILL: Clean coal.

BIDEN: Oh, I'm sorry.

IFILL: On clean coal.

BIDEN: Oh, on clean coal. My record, just take a look at the record. My record for 25 years has supported clean coal technology. A comment made in a rope line was taken out of context. I was talking about exporting that technology to China so when they burn their dirty coal, it won't be as dirty, it will be clean.

But here's the bottom line, Gwen: How do we deal with global warming with continued addition to carbon emissions? And if the only answer you have is oil, and John -- and the governor says John is for everything.

Well, why did John vote 20 times? Maybe he's for everything as long as it's not helped forward by the government. Maybe he's for everything if the free market takes care of it. I don't know. But he voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources.

Sensationalizing Earthquakes in New York

2008-10-02T14:59:00.003-04:00

It was just a few years back that some folks forking for the NASA Earth Observatory got in touch with my advisor Nicole Riemer and I. Nicole and I had submitted an abstract for a talk at the AGU meeting in Acapulco, Mexico. This fellow from NASA had read the abstract and decided that our research was interesting enough to write about on the Earth Observatory website. Needless to say, we were pretty excited, any sort of publicity for science research really helps get future grants looked at in a favorable light. After playing e-mail tag, it was decided that we’d talk on the phone. He called me. We started talking. It seemed like he found the research interesting. We talked more about the project, the findings and the impacts on society. Then he asked about how NASA funded the research. I was surprised, and noted that we received no funding from NASA. Shortly after that the interview was over, and it was decided there would be no article, as it was not NASA sponsored research. I was surprised because the research included lots of data generated by NASA satellites, one would think that would be enough?

Since then, I’ve been skeptical about the NASA Earth Observatory’s news branch. Are they science reporters or public relations experts? I am think it’s the later.

None the less, I will put my skepticism on hold to discuss a recent post at the Earth Observatory on earthquake activity in the New York Metro area. (Here is the link to the article and here is the link to the research paper for the brave souls out there). The study finds that earthquake activity in the New York region is higher than what was previously thought, primarily along a narrow fault line known as the Mesozoic Rampapo Fault. In so far as my pathetic knowledge of geology goes, I think Mesozoic refers to a period in time, which would correspond to a depth under the Earth, so the name implies the location and the depth of the fault.

The authors look back at the long term history of earthquakes in the region (since 1677), and again at an instrumental record since the 1970’s to asses the frequency of earthquakes. Their finding is that there are indeed more earthquakes in the region than previously thought, and that the majority of these earthquakes are category 3.0 or less on the Richter Scale. Based on the figure shown here to the right, since the year 1677 it looks like there have been about 25 earthquakes between category 3 and 4, two earthquakes between category 4 and 5, and three earthquakes of category 5 or higher. Based on the figure shown just below, it looks like there have been no earthquakes larger than category 3 since 1974.

For reference, Category 3 earthquakes are described as “minor: Often felt, but rarely causes damage.” Category 4 earthquakes are described as “light: Noticeable shaking of indoor items, rattling noises. Significant damage unlikely.” And Category 5 is described as “moderate: Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings over small regions. At most slight damage to well-designed buildings.”

A bit of math tells us that that the study has a period of 329 years. It also tells us once every 13.16 years there is a minor earthquake, once every 65.8 years there is a light or moderate earthquake in the study region. I would conclude from this study that earthquakes occur more often than previously thought but not frequently, and that when they do they are quite minor.

How does NASA’s Earth Observatory interpret the findings?

A study by a group of prominent seismologists suggests that a pattern of subtle but active faults makes the risk of earthquakes to the New York City area substantially greater than formerly believed. Among other things, they say that the controversial Indian Point nuclear power plants, 24 miles north of the city, sit astride the previously unidentified intersection of two active seismic zones.

The authors compiled a catalog of all 383 known earthquakes from 1677 to 2007 in a 15,000-square-mile area around New York City. Coauthor John Armbruster estimated sizes and locations of dozens of events before 1930 by combing newspaper accounts and other records. The researchers say magnitude 5 quakes – strong enough to cause damage--occurred in 1737, 1783 and 1884. There was little settlement around to be hurt by the first two quakes, whose locations are vague due to a lack of good accounts; but the last, thought to be centered under the seabed somewhere between Brooklyn and Sandy Hook, toppled chimneys across the city and New Jersey, and panicked bathers at Coney Island. Based on this, the researchers say such quakes should be routinely expected, on average, about every 100 years. "Today, with so many more buildings and people, a magnitude 5 centered below the city would be extremely attention-getting," said Armbruster. "We'd see billions in damage, with some brick buildings falling. People would probably be killed."

I’ll keep my opinion about sensationalizing science to myself here, but my point is that everyone should be sure to go and look through findings for themselves, and not just take the word of a journalist, a public relations person or worse yet a blogger.

Election Special

2008-10-02T13:29:00.004-04:00

Dear Readers ***,

Late this month I plan on dedicating a week to examining how the presidential candidates have handled science and the environment during their campaign and how their prior voting record in the senate reflects their perspective on the issues. There are two items that I am definitely discussing, alternative energy policy and global climate change. I am looking for three more items to discuss here on the blog, and I thought I would put the issues up for a vote. Be sure to go to the comment section and argue why we should talk about the issues, as I may discuss a topic that doesn't get the most votes if there is passion for it from the readers!

Here are a few other possible topics:
* Air and Water Pollution
* Conservation Policy (including fisheries management, biodiversity and invasive species)
* Fossil Fuel Energy Policy
* Waste Management
* Agriculture
* Natural Resources (timber, metals, etc.)
* Funding of Science Research

Also feel free to present your own issues in the comments, if you have questions. Thanks for participating!

Owen

Steward's Icebox...now without ice!

2008-10-01T16:25:00.003-04:00

The figure on the right shows the yearly total area coverage of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean (y-axis), as a function of month of the year (x-axis). 2008 has had more sea ice coverage than in 2007, especially in the summer months, but is significantly below average. Image from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

There is absolutely nothing worse than getting into a black painted car with a black interior in the afternoon of a hot, sunny summer day. Just crack open the door and waves of heat strikes roll over you as the hot air escapes the vehicle. Black cars become hot because the sunlight striking the car is absorbed by the black paint. In contrast a silver or white car is cooler, because the sunlight striking the car is reflected away back towards the sky.

The same thing happens to the Earth’s air temperature. It’s really warm above dark objects that absorb sunlight and cooler above light objects that reflect that sunlight. And that is one of the many reasons why the ice covering the Arctic and Antartic regions is so vital, when sunlight strikes the ice, it is reflected back to space, cooling the Earth’s climate significantly.

This is why scientists are making such a fuss about the decrease in sea ice in the Artic Ocean. Sea ice acts as a reflective agent for the Earth moderating the climate. As the Earth warms in the next few years, the amount of ice will decrease as it melts, which in turn will further increase the temperature of the Earth as less sunlight is reflected and more is absorbed. Scientists refer to this as a “positive feedback” because an increase in one variable causes the system to respond by further increasing that variable.

This summer sea ice was found in greater abundance than was found in the summer of 2007. Summer is the point of the year that sea ice is at a minimum, and thus when the positive feedback is at its strongest. While having more sea ice this year is a good thing, it probably means very little in the long run, as the amount of ice found is still much less than what was observed for most of the 20th Century.

The annual summer retreat of the sea ice cloaking the Arctic Ocean appears to have ended with the ice not quite matching last year’s extraordinary recession, polar scientists said Tuesday.

Still, the scientists, at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., said that the ice in the Arctic this summer was 33 percent below the average extent tracked since satellites started monitoring the region in 1979 and that the trend continued toward an ice-free Arctic Ocean within a few decades.

As people who’ve been through a winter or two will tell you, some years are colder than others and Arctic climate is no different. This year, was a bit colder than last year, but the long term trend is robust. Sea ice is declining rapidly during the summer, and soon there will likely be no summer ice to speak of.

Dr. Meier said that small variations from one year to the next were less significant than the long-term trajectory, which remained toward progressively more open water. “It’s hard to see the summer ice coming back in any substantial way,” he said.

Decreases in sea ice have impacts beyond that of just climate. While some of our nation’s greatest politicians, who are obviously experts in the field of climate science may not agree with recent finding regarding the findings showing that Polar Bears and other Arctic species may struggle in an environment suddenly devoid of ice, scientists note that this is also a major concern:

Federal biologists have said that this long-term ice retreat is the main reason they had concluded that polar bears, which hunt seals from the ice, deserved protection under the Endangered Species Act. The Bush administration listed the species in May as threatened with extinction.

Global warming from the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases almost certainly contributes to the Arctic ice retreats, according to a host of Arctic specialists. But many say natural variations in Arctic winds and cloud cover probably had a role in shaping the particularly large ice losses in the past two summers.

It will be interesting to keep an eye on sea ice in the summer months during the next few years. Maybe we should put a pool together to pick the first year without any sea ice? It’d be like fantasy baseball, but fantasy climate. This could be a money winner…

A link between dust and hurricanes?

2008-09-30T14:40:00.003-04:00

At right, Hurricane Floyd in the late summer of 1999 before it made its northward turn up the eastern seaboard of the United States. Image from NCDC.

Hurricanes capture the human imagination. Hurricanes are the perfect natural disaster for the 21st century. Unlike their brethren disasters, hurricanes are somewhat predictable, their massive symmetric swirl can be seen on satellite images days before the hurricanes reach the short of a tropical island or the coastline of a massive continent. Best yet, hurricanes are beamed into your livingroom via satellite. Whether you are watching a panting weatherman on CNN yelling barely coherent words about how this is the worst hurricane to hit since the last one, or you are watching on the Weather Channel as some slightly idiotic meteorologists stations themselves 15 feet from the ocean as 95 mile per hour winds batter their highly makeuped faces, hurricanes are something that everyone can understand, successfully visualize and ultimately relate to.

At right, dust blows off the Sahara Desert over Western Africa on it’s way across the Atlantic. The presence of dust can be seen as a gentle haze over much of the left 1/3 of the picture. The image was taken by MODIS satellite June 6, 2008.

So, maybe it’s more surprising that it ought to be that hurricanes can be impacted by the presence of tiny earthen particles in the atmosphere, known as mineral dust. Mineral dust is picked up by the wind from dirt, dust and sand on the Earth’s surface and blown hundreds or thousands of miles, sailing across oceans on rivers of air high above, often landing on differing continents. When the wind direction and speed are just right and the soil conditions just so, lots of dust can be picked up at once, and the sky darkened as dust obscures the sun’s rays. These impressive massive floating storms of dust are known as dust storms, and recent findings suggest that these dust storms makes hurricanes less likely to form or thrive in their presence.

Recently, this topic was discussed on all things considered on NPR. Follow this link and click on the red button with a speaker icon to take a listen to the report.

Dust seems to oppose hurricane formation in two ways, first by absorbing sunlight it cools the ocean beneath it. Hurricanes rely on warm waters to gather the energy and moisture necessary for them to develop into intense storms. Secondly, dust tends to be found in a dry, hot airmass lofted between 1 and 5 kilometers above the surface. This dry, hot layer tends to choke the hurricane by stealing moisture from the storm, and interfering with the convection that provides the heat engine for the hurricane.

Interestingly enough, dust storms are maximized each year during the summer, coincident with hurricane season. This coincidental timing increases possibility that there are meaningful dust – hurricane interactions each season. The figure to the right if from research we have done here at Stony Brook, showing the average amount of absorbing aerosols, including dust, that are found in the atmosphere each season. As you can see there are a lot of these aerosols over Africa, and as you head westward it slowly decreases. This suggests that dust plumes pick up large quantities of dust, which gets transported long distances, increasing the likelihood that it has a chance to interact with tropical systems.

Dust is what I study, and this finding is quite exciting. I am working hard to find ways to anticipate the quantity of dust storms that will occur each year based on meteorological conditions. If said forecasts help to further predict how many hurricanes each year, I will have made a lasting contribution to humanity, which is always the goal of a research scientist.

New wind energy plan for Long Island

2008-09-29T16:46:00.003-04:00

Sorry about the lack of posts last week. I am working on my PhD proposal presently, and I find it hard to do a lot of writing in one day and work on multiple writing projects at the same time.
--------------------------

Another plan is in the works to place wind turbines off the south shore of Long Island, according to this blurb from News 12 Long Island.

Putting windmills in the Atlantic Ocean to generate power for Long Island is back on the drawing board at LIPA, the power authority says. After a failed try for a wind farm off Jones Beach, the company is now trying for Queens.

LIPA CEO Kevin Law told the power authority’s board Tuesday morning that he has been talking with Con Edison about the idea. Law says the aim is to reduce Long Island’s reliance on oil from the Middle East.

”We agreed that perhaps it would make sense, where we could share the cost and share the power,” Law says.

A proposed wind farm off Jones Beach was canceled last year because of concerns it was too expensive. The new proposal would include more windmills than the Jones Beach project and would be located further out -- about 10 miles from the Rockaways.
LIPA says the technology has improved since the Jones Beach plan was considered.

LIPA and Con Edison are working on determining the cost of the project and if the wind farm would end up saving Long Islanders money in the long run. If they determine the plan does not make economic sense, it will not be pushed forward.

Previous attempts to harvest the large quantities of wind power available off the south shore of Long Island failed primarily for two reasons; first the project would cost so much that the energy harvested would be prohibitively expensive and secondly the project was near to a scenic region off of Jones Beach that residents were concerned would be obscured by the project.

The new project is expected to be larger in scope than the previously proposed project, so the hope is that construction expenses per unit energy produced will be lower, thus the energy will be more reasonably priced. The news blurb vaguely makes reference to “new technology” that would cost less to install or run. Compared to a few years ago, fossil fuel based electricity is more expensive, so this project may make a bit more economic sense.

As per the visual impact of the project, it should be similar, as both projects were expected to be 10 miles off the coast. There may be a difference in public perspective however between “off of Jones Beach” and “off of Queens.” People may have been protective (overly so?) of their parkland view.

A very unscientific poll by News 12 Long Island found 87% (521 self selected respondents) of people who self-surveyed themselves were in favor of building the wind turbines off the coast of Queens, and only 13% (72 self selected respondents) were opposed. This ratio is likely to change when the costs of the projects are announced.

So it seems that the public is now strongly in support of the initiative, whereas only a few years ago they were skeptical of a similar project. It is unclear if this is due to a shift in public opinions of alternative energy sources, or if it is a result of the project being moved away from Jones Beach. What do you think?

Walden...er Emerson Pond

2008-09-23T23:05:00.002-04:00

A major coup was scored in New York State in the name of conservation, when the Nature Conservancy purchased a large tract of previously held private land for preservation. But before we get there, here are a few random comments I’d like to share with the general blog reading audience.

• Okay, so baseball season is drawing to a close. And that means the droning, grating tones of John Sterling, and worse Suzyn Waldman will cease permeating my car. But honestly after being subjected to Dan Dierdorf for 3 hours during the Giants game on Sunday, I take back everything bad I ever said about baseball announcers. Listening to him is pure misery.

• I advise you strongly to not ever write anything negative about Geo Metros. It turns out that Geo Metro drivers are very much so pleased with their cars, and do not take kindly to you calling them “ugly,” “hideous” or “deathtrap.” The validity of these statements evidently doesn’t change their minds.

* Have you ever been set up to fail? Given an assignment or task that you are woefully unqualified to complete? This happened to me this past week. I was to give a lecture on subject matter that I’m totally uncomfortable with to fellow graduate students. Best case scenario is I look like an idiot. Worst case scenario, I am an idiot. Despite the feeling of impending doom, it was frighteningly liberating. When you know you are going to bomb at something, you can do so with flair. I feel like this morning when I gave the worst lecture on the Coreolis Force in the history of lecturing, at least I went down swinging.

Okay – back to the blog. Take a gander at this video. Breathe it in.

The property in the above video was recently acquired by the Nature Conservancy. The idea behind the property acquisition is to eventually turn the property over to the state of New York for inclusion in the Adirondack State Park. The property in question is known as “Follensby Pond” and checks in at 14,600 acres. The 14,600 acres includes a 1,000 acre stretch around Follensby Pond where Ralph Waldo Emerson and crew chilled out. Prior to acquisition the Pond was the largest such pond in private possession in the Northeastern United States.

From the Nature Conservancy Website:

Follensby Pond drains into the Raquette River where a 20-mile stretch of silver maple floodplain forest is considered to be the best example of that natural community type in the Adirondacks and among the best in the state. The quiet, slow-moving backwater pools associated with that largely undisturbed stretch of river also earned high ranks in a three-year Nature Conservancy study which assigned local, state, and global rankings to approximately 102 natural community types found in the Adirondacks.

This is a very exciting acquisition for the Nature Conservancy, and eventually for New York State. In addition to being beautiful lands, the region is also ecologically unique, being chosen as the site of Bald Eagle re-introduction.

Follensby Pond was selected as the only site in the Adirondack Park where bald eagles were reintroduced, a process known as “hacking.” New York State Department of Environmental Conservation endangered species unit leader Peter Nye led the effort in the 1980s. “Follensby was an ideal location because it had suitable habitat for current and future use by the eagles, was free from human disturbance, and good for nesting,” he said, adding that it was “a place where eagles could be eagles.”

In 1981 Nye traveled to Alaska, one of the few places in the nation where eagles were abundant, to collect eaglets unable to fly, but old enough to regulate their temperature and tear and eat fish without parental assistance. As many as 60 eaglets were released at Follensby Pond over several years, including one the McCormick grandchildren named “Emerson.” Today, the 12 nesting pairs of bald eagles in the Adirondacks are a testament to the success of those efforts.

It will be some time for New York residents to gain access to the property, as parts of it are currently being leased out for individual recreational use. Full details on the acquisition are available in this New York Times article.

What is so smart about SMART cars?

2008-09-18T11:46:00.000-04:00

Well we haven’t had a comment (or a reader) since August, so maybe it’s time to spice things up a bit. Let’s talk cars for a moment.

Both of the cars shown above (pictures taken from edmunds.com) are hideously ugly and would most likely provide little to no safety protection should you get in a horrific accident. One of the cars above gets 33 miles per gallon in the city and 41 miles per gallon highway and will set you back at least $14,000. The other car gets over 50 miles per gallon in either scenario and you could pick one up for less than a grand ($1,000). Did I mention that both are hideously ugly?

Well for all the luxury of a 1994 Geo Metro and only $13,000 more you too can own a SMART Car. So, what exactly is it that has environmentally minded folks rushing to their nearest SMART car dealer to take one home?

Lower Emissions

The smart fortwo is also classified as an Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) due to its extremely low exhaust emissions. The catalytic converter is positioned close to the engine for a quick response. An electric pump blows fresh air into the exhaust port when the engine is cold to almost completely oxidize the carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) and render them harmless.

The above quote, taken from the smartcar website on “ecology,” implies that the car produces few gasses that are destructive compounds. When we think about car emissions, we are concerned primarily with two sorts of compounds NOx’s and VOC’s. NOx compounds are any nitrogen-oxygen molecules, such as NO2 (nitrogen dioxide), N2O (nitrous oxide), and NO (Nitric oxide). These compounds are quite active in the photochemical (that is to say chemical reactions involving solar energy) reactions that produce ozone. VOC’s are a much more diverse and complicated groups that can be best described as hydrocarbon byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. They are produced from imperfections in your gasoline and incomplete combustion of the gasoline fuel itself.

So the SMART car reduces VOC emissions but not NOx emissions. Why is this important? Well, as many frustrated city engineers have found reducing VOC’s without reducing NOx’s can lead to increases in total ozone! Take a gander at the chart to the right (taken from this website) and see why.

The x axis shows the concentration of VOC’s and the y axis shows the concentration of NOx’s. The curves on the graph show the amount of ozone formed from the amount of VOC and NOx indicated on the axes. Take a set value of VOC say 0.5, draw a vertical line on the chart in your mind. Depending on how much NOx you start with, increasing or decreasing the concentration of NOx can increase or decrease total ozone. Thus we must be careful to reduce both when we reduce emissions.

Recycling
SMART car prides itself on its ability to be recycled. But as far as our waste stream goes, cars are probably some of the most well recycled and reused components. Consider what happens when a car goes to a junkyard, the electronics are removed to be resold, any working components of the car are removed to be sold as spare parts, any and all residual metal is compressed and sent to Asia for recycling – all that is left is plastic, fabric and foam. So any improvements to car design would have to pertain to those waste products primarily.

Ecofriendly Construction
Another major waste from car construction and use are the fluids, paints and chemicals applied to the upholstery of the interior. It appears as if the SMART car takes all of these things into effect in its construction, but details as to what exactly they do (aside from using less solvents in the painting process) are lacking on the website.

I can’t see what’s so smart about a SMART car, that hasn’t been done before. But perhaps someone out there can? This is something that strikes me as "trying to be green" just to sell a product, with little positive environmental impact.

Zapped!

2008-09-17T16:46:00.001-04:00

Wow! Zero comments on the last three posts. Okay, this will be the last post on wind power for the near future. We’ll see if we can get some other responses from more interesting topics.

It has taken the nation a long time to get to the point we are today dealing with alternative energies. Although available for a number of years, only now has “alternative energy” become a topic that both political parties are rallying towards. Imagine how much more the push will be towards alternative energies in ten years, when the price of oil has doubled, and American’s home energy bills are soaring. Imagine every state taking advantage of wind and solar potential, constructing turbines and panels along farms and sky scrapers alike. Now imagine, despite all this production, rolling brownouts and blackouts in far removed areas, because we can’t get energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed. This is our likely future if the federal government doesn’t take swift action to address the rapidly ageing electrical grid, according to this article in the New York Times.

When the builders of the Maple Ridge Wind farm spent $320 million to put nearly 200 wind turbines in upstate New York, the idea was to get paid for producing electricity. But at times, regional electric lines have been so congested that Maple Ridge has been forced to shut down even with a brisk wind blowing.

Even today, progressive instillation of wind energy in Western and Central New York is being slowed by an antiquated electric grid. (And by the way, another point demonstrating how major this business is to the region, $320 million, yikes!).

I attended a seminar on the use of metaphors in explaining science to the public by Julia Mead last night, and this is an example of one used in the article, that I think is pretty solid (even if it is only a simile):

The grid today, according to experts, is a system conceived 100 years ago to let utilities prop each other up, reducing blackouts and sharing power in small regions. It resembles a network of streets, avenues and country roads.

“We need an interstate transmission superhighway system,” said Suedeen G. Kelly, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

In short, the current system of electric grids is managed on the state level, and are often constructed with little to no interstate transmission of energy in mind. In the future, if we are to take advantage of the great solar potential in the desert Southwest or the great wind potential in the Great Plains, we will need a modern transmission system. In fact at present, our transmission system is limiting our ability to utilize this potential.

The grid’s limitations are putting a damper on such projects already. Gabriel Alonso, chief development officer of Horizon Wind Energy, the company that operates Maple Ridge, said that in parts of Wyoming, a turbine could make 50 percent more electricity than the identical model built in New York or Texas.

“The windiest sites have not been built, because there is no way to move that electricity from there to the load centers,” he said.

I’ll keep today’s post short and sweet, and conclude that an additional concern in the development of alternative energies is that we need a modern electricity transmission system or power grid developed before wide scale utilization of alternative energies is practical. An additional conclusion to be drawn from this point is that generation of energy from alternative sources in New York City is not only a trendy thing to do, but it’s a practical or almost perhaps necessary. Locally produced energy reduces the demand on the grid, and reduces the amount of energy that is wasted during its transmission.

Big Turbines in the Big Apple

2008-09-16T08:00:00.002-04:00

Okay, today’s post will be much shorter than yesterday’s…that was too much text for any mere mortal to enjoy.

Big Turbines in the Big Apple?
Yesterday we discussed why large, industry standard 1.5 mega Watt turbines would not work in New York City. Today we’ll talk about a proposal to have large, industry standard 1.5 mega Watt turbines in New York City. As we discussed yesterday wind turbines need a lot of space. They are massive structures. They create noise not suitable for residential locals, and they can throw ice chunks great distances. Where in New York City is there space enough for giant wind turbines? Answer according to the New York Times: the United States largest landfill; Fresh Kills in Staten Island.

Having spent decades persuading the city to close the giant Fresh Kills landfill, Staten Island officials are now arguing that the vast site would be the perfect home for the energy-creating windmills that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has proposed as a way to make New York City more sustainable.

Wow turning what the Staten Island Borough President refers to as “one of the country’s worst ecological nightmares” into New York City’s first wind farm would be quite an environmental coup. Unlike the failed Long Island offshore windfarm, this endeavor may be economically viable (much of the cost with the Long Island had to do with construction and maintenance of an offshore site, a land based construction would be much more economical.) Lost in the Times article is that the project is just part of a major rehabilitation process for the landfill, including the creation of large areas of parkland and nature preserves.

A question arises, will the public have access to parts of the park where the wind turbines are located? Short term exposure to the noise generated by the turbines is not a serious concern, so long as care is taken during icy periods to avoid ice throw, hopefully the public will have full access to the region.

Will Small Turbines Work?
A second article in the Times discusses the utility of smaller turbines, the type that Mayor Bloomberg proposes to deploy across the city on rooftops, bridges and other structures. Do these small turbines produce enough energy for their expense?

These tiny turbines generate so little electricity that some energy experts are not sure the economics will ever make sense.
By contrast, the turbines being installed at wind farms are getting ever larger and more powerful, lowering the unit cost of electricity to the point that they are becoming competitive with electricity generated from natural gas.
The spread of the big turbines and a general fascination with all things green are helping to spur interest in rooftop microturbines, creating a movement somewhere on the border between a hobby and an environmental fashion statement.

The article seems to insinuate that at present the cost of instillation is not made up by the meager energy produced. Instead instillation is being driven by a desire to be green or be trendy. The article attempts to differentiate between smaller stand alone wind turbines and roof based, small turbines, noting that the smaller yet independent wind turbines do indeed produce enough energy to pay for themselves, whereas the roof based ones do not.

One assumes that technology will at some point overcome the technological and manufacturing challenges and produce inexpensive rooftop turbines. But the article notes that there are some major concerns with the urban wind environment in general.

But many experts caution that rooftops, while abundant, are usually poor places to harness the breeze. Not only are cities less windy than the countryside, but the air is choppier because of trees and the variation in heights in buildings. Turbulence can wear down a turbine and make it operate less efficiently. This is particularly problematic for houses with pitched roofs.

New York is a winder environment than most cities (windier in fact than the so called “Windy City” of Chicago), but the presence of sky scrapers does introduce a frictional drag decreasing the wind speed. The building induced turbulence is not a problem that technology will solve any time soon.

So the city faces major technological challenges to its desire to harness wind power upon rooftops. Only time and technology will show if this ambitious project is feasible.

Concerns About Wind Power in an Urban Enviroment

2008-09-15T17:41:00.002-04:00

(Aside: Thanks to everyone who has e-mailed me about Science Debate 2008. I am planning on writing a few posts about how this years crop of politicians have performed on issues relating to the environment in October. Until then, you can stop e-mailing me about this :-).)

Avid reader, master strategist and all around great guy Chris John noted this concern about implementing wind power in an urban environment:

If an art exhibit (Olaf Eliasson's [sp] waterfalls) under the Brooklyn Bridge almost killed two kayakers, I dread to think of the mess we're going to have to clean up from wind turbines.

So lets take a few minutes to address wind power, and to think about how well suited it would be for a major urban region like New York City.

A couple of years ago I was lucky enough to win the Evan R. Liblit Scholarship. I was honored to be chosen as the Evan R. Liblit Scholar, since Mr. Liblit was an environmental hero, championing the cause of recycling and responsible waste management on Long Island during the 1980’s and 1990’s. (People are so passionate about Evan Liblit, that they are even willing to row the length of the Yukon River to raise awareness and money). As part of the Scholarship I was to attend the New York State Solid Waste and Recycling Conference in Lake George. Admittedly, I wasn’t particularly excited about this – who wanted to spend a week learning about garbage? But my talk was well received, which was great and I got to see a presentation session on Wind Power in New York State, the content of which has stuck with me ever since.

As it turns out, wind power is becoming a big business in many parts of New York State, especially those regions that abut the Great Lakes. The regions downwind of the Great Lakes are (as we discussed before) in a region with great wind power potential, and also are suffering from a still stagnant economy that began its decline in the late 1980’s. As such many municipalities are investigating whether allowing utility companies to construct wind turbines on farmland and other open terrain would be beneficial to the communities. I can’t recall this with much certainty, but I do recall someone citing at the conference the example of a small town that had reduced its school and property taxes to zero by contracting with a major utility.

To me, one of the most surprising aspects of the wind power craze in Central and Western New York State, was the degree to which lawyers needed to be involved in the process. Here I will try to speak as simply as possible to avoid displaying my legal ignorance (much like Sarah Palin should avoid speaking in public about polar bears, global warming and ANWAR – ZING!). Small rural municipalities were very much so dependant upon two firms (one in Albany one in Buffalo) to draft complicated lease agreements with utilities as well as to craft appropriate zoning regulation that protected the health and welfare of residents along with allowing for economically reasonable utilization of wind energy. This process is much more involved than you think, due to the impacts of ice throw and noise pollution generated by wind turbines (actually it is so complicated that there is a legal blog dedicated to issues regarding wind power).

Ice Throw

Ice throw occurs when wind turbine blades become coated in ice, generally from freezing rain or from freezing fog. As winds pick up after the storm, the blades begin to rotate and in the process the ice that has accumulated on the blade can be thrown over large distances. The figure to the right, taken from this non-peered reviewed source, shows the distance ice can be hurled. Along the ordinate (x-axis) is shown the width of the turbine blades in meters. The y-axis shows the distance that ice chunks have been thrown. The color of the dots show the mass of the hurled ice chunks. Smaller chunks of ice have been shown to be thrown lengths in excess of three football fields. Larger chunks of ice, coming in at about 1kg or 2.2 lbs have been shown to be thrown 25m! Well take those results with a grain of salt, since they don’t come from a peer reviewed source, but none the less it is evident that wind turbines cannot be sited in densely populated regions, or even in regions with large amounts of infrastructure. It doesn’t need to be said, but obviously chunks of ice flying off of 50 story buildings in Manhattan would probably be frowned upon by local residents.

It should be noted that by my recollection, none of the speakers at the conference considered ice throw to be a major issue. They noted that technology was improving, reducing the capacity of ice to be thrown and that the amount of ice accumulation was relatively small in general and limited to short periods of the year. They also pointed out the lack of observed injuries related to ice throw, suggesting that either this is not a serious issue or that people have done a good job citing turbines.

Noise Pollution
A second major concern that requires the attention of zoners, is that of noise generation. Turbines when operational generate a low frequency humming noise. Although not altogether an unpleasant sound, the volume (which gets higher as the turbines speed up) accumulated over time can injure local residents long term hearing.

Here is a video of a large industrial wind farm, documenting the noise that the giant turbines make:

The amount of noise will vary based on the design of each turbine, the wind speed and local topography. Each community needs to assess how much noise each turbine in their town is expected to put out, and make zoning regulations that make sense for local resident’s health. In the case of New York City, it is unclear whether or not a wind turbine would produce noise in excess of the current noise levels. Massive wind turbines, like those shown on the above video are also not possible in an urban environment. One imagines that a smaller turbine built for rooftop use would have a much smaller noise impact.

Aesthetic impacts
The visual presence of wind turbines is thought to have a potential negative aesthetic impact. This is true in many pristine environments, but in other environments some folks actually enjoy the way the wind turbines look. I wish I had a reference to back this up, but I heard once that in Europe property values of locations with wind turbines.

In the case of the Long Island Windpark, concerns over property value were paramount. Additionally folks were very worried about the impact of wind turbines on the view from regional beaches and tourism.

Bird deaths
To be frank, I think that this issue is overstated. The number of birds killed by feral cats at Stony Brook University outnumbers the total number of birds killed by wind turbines in all of New York State I would guess. This issue seems to be something of an “ecco-myth” and probably stems back to antiquated technology. Some new wind turbines come equipped with “whistles” that emit sound on a wavelength that birds can hear (humans however cannot hear the sound) and find annoying.

Birds have a large number of threats to their well being to be sure, high tension wires, high rise buildings, automobiles, domesticated invasive species – I’m not so sure that wind turbines are of the order of impacts as the previously listed problems.

Yikes this post is getting long, probably past the point that anyone is still reading. So let me conclude with a wildcard. Everything we have been discussing so far has pertained to the traditional wind turbine. Colossal, gigantic, tall, massive – these are all adjectives that could be used to describe the turbines. These are not the sorts of turbines that would be practical in New York City.

Rohit Aggarwala, the director of the city’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, said that turbines on buildings would likely be much smaller than offshore ones. Several companies are experimenting with models that look like eggbeaters, which the Bloomberg administration says could be integrated into the spires atop the city’s tall buildings. “”You can make them so small that people think they are part of the design,” Mr. Aggarwala said. “If rooftop wind can make it anywhere, this is a great city,” he said. “We have a lot of tall buildings.”

Such new turbines would have to be designed to not produce any icethrow, and regardless of the size of the particles or how far they are thrown, ice chunks falling from sky scrapers would not be acceptable. Noise concerns must be taken into account, but I’m not entirely confident that wind turbines would be appreciably louder than air conditioner units currently housed on many rooftops, nor would they be louder than the ambient city noise levels. Bird kill in New York City may be a serious problem as many birds congregate on city rooftops. Furthermore, birds in New York City are notoriously stupid and their termination may be a blessing in disguise…just kidding.

The file drawer effect

2008-09-14T20:04:00.001-04:00

So why post this summers climate report? Well for one, I am a meteorologist and old habits die hard. But the thing I wanted to stress was how poor our memories are when it comes to recalling previously encountered environmental conditions. When it comes down to it we often remember only the events that concur with what we expect or hope for. This preferential recollection occurs so often that psychologists have a name for it, the file-drawer effect*.

(*- I'm more impressed with myself for remembering this from Psychology 101 class in Fall 2002 in Bailey Hall, than I am with psychologist for coming up with the effect. Of course, the reason I remember this class so vividly isn't for the class itself but rather the instructor, Dr. Jim Maas. I have never in my entire life attended a series of lectures by someone who thought so highly of himself and felt the need to share this opinion with his subjects on such a regular basis. The class was practically a shrine to his achievements, including the mandatory reading of his own book. My favorie Jim Maas story however has nothing to do with the class. My friend and former roommate Bhargav had sprained his ankle at one point, and needed a ride onto campus. So we piled into my saturn and stopped outside of his building. Mass pulls up behind us, and while we are helping the obviously injured and on crutches Bhargav out of the car Maas lays on the horn, flailing his arms about wildly. The kicker was that there was room for him to drive around us. The amazing thing is that as much as I envy Mass' academic success (I mean who wouldn't, he teaches the largest undergraduate lecture in the US, has multiple books read and is a successful researcher at an Ivy League school), I would never want to be like him in a million years.)

File drawer effect, gets its name from file drawer cabinets, where in years passed researchers would dutifully file interesting research papers on topics related to their research. Researchers would pick out papers that agree with their hypothesis, and ignore or file away deeply in their drawers papers that disagreed with their hypothesis. Thus, you create a large cache of supportive papers and ignore (the occasionally massive) the collection of papers that contradict your research.

This premise materializes itself with tales of the supernatural. You may walk up a flight of stairs in your home over 10,000 times in your life. In all likelihood nothing odd will happen 9,999 times. However if one time by chance, a ball suddenly bounces down the stairs in the middle of the night, and out observe it, you will remember that freak occurrence. In fact you will almost certainly not recall the other 9,999 times when nothing out of the ordinary occurred, but then point to that one time as proof that a ghost lives in your staircase and haunts you late at night.

Perhaps this explains why the more educated you are the more likely you are to believe in the supernatural.

The 2006 study of college students, done by Bryan Farha at Oklahoma City University and Gary Steward Jr. of the University of Central Oklahoma, reached a similar conclusion. Belief in the paranormal — from astrology to communicating with the dead — increases during college, rising from 23 percent among freshmen to 31 percent in seniors and 34 percent among graduate students.

I hypothesize that as you progress in education you are trained in the art of observation, and learn to draw hypothesis and inferences from these observation. In the case of extremely unlikely occurrences, rather than attribute things to chance (which trained scientists often never do), we attribute this to the supernatural.

Well my point to all of this is don’t believe what you remember when it comes to the environment. What you remember is likely to be biased to what you want to remember. When grandpa tells you he had to walk up hill in snow up to his knees to get to school he’s probably right, that did happen. However, it probably only happened once, and he has since selectively recalled this event, ignoring all the other days that he did not walk to school in snow up to his knees.

A summer in review!

2008-09-11T23:52:00.002-04:00

Summer ended on August 31st, the day before Labor Day, well for climate researchers at least, who define the summer as June, July and August. So it’s definitely worth a minute or two to look over the climate of the summer than has come and gone. But before I do an apology on the lack of postings over the past week and a half. I was off to see a dear old friend get married in Alabama and the beginning of the school year has left me reeling… now without further ado, back to blogging.

When it comes to the weather, our brains do a poor job recollecting past climate events. Nearly everyone has something to say about things have changed, “when I was a kid it rained almost everyday, now it never does” or “it used to be cold in the winter when I was growing up, now it’s so mild!” But one would assume that our brains can at least recall how the past few months have been relative to “normal.” Based on my experiences the past few months, I think it’s clear that humans can’t even do that.

Okay quick question for you, was this summer warmer or colder than “usual?” Was it wetter or drier? How often do you recall it getting about 90? Write down your answers, and see how well you did recalling the summer. For the record, I thought it was a very wet summer and that it was below average in terms of temperature, with maybe a week or so above 90.

Summer Summary:
Temperatures
Well, I’ll violate a cardinal rule of writing and tell you the answer first. It was warmer everywhere in the New York Metro area this summer than average. It was in fact, quite a bit warmer than average. In New York city (JFK airport) it was 2.2 degrees F above average. On Long Island (Islip airport) and Westchester (Westchester airport) it was only slightly above average, coming in at +0.8 and +0.3 degrees F respectively.

The figure to the right shows the national temperature anomaly for the summer. It was warm in the Northeast and hot along the west coast.

	June	July	August	Summer Ave
White Plains	+2.3	+1.0	-2.3	+0.3
J.F.K.	+4.6	+2.5	-0.5	+2.2
Islip	+3.1	+1.3	-1.9	+0.8

June had the greatest temperature anomaly (or deviation from average) across the region. A heat wave from June 7 to 10th brought the thermometer to 95 across the region, and produced days that were 10 to 15 degrees warmer than average. Excluding the heat wave (and a few days at the end of the month) the remainder of the month was at or near average. In total there were four (five in the city) days that the thermometer reached 90 across the region. A typical June at Islip airport has 1.9 days above 90 (JFK averages 1.7), for comparison.

July was also above average across the region, although to a lesser degree. In July we experienced only one heat wave, from July 18th through the 22st. During this heat wave temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees above average, but outside of this period temperatures were again at or near normal. In total there were three (four in the city) days that the thermometer reached 90. A typical July at Islip airport has 3.1 days above 90 (JFK averages 4.4), again for comparison.

August was the odd month out, as it were, as it was below average across the region. 70’s and 80’s were the rule, as there were no days above 90 at any airport across the region. This is anomalous as JFK averages 2.8 days above 90 and Islip 1.4 days. There were no major warm periods, or for that matter cool periods. Nighttime lows were well below average, but daytime highs were near average. This suggests that there were a lot of clear dry days where the atmosphere could cool off quickly during the evening hours.

The figure to the right shows the temperature anomaly for August. You can see the cool pocket along the northeast, that stretched southwest across the Ohio Valley and into the Midwest. The west coast continued to broil…

Precipitation

	June	July	August	Summer Total
White Plains	+0.88	-0.57	-1.06	-0.75
J.F.K.	-0.04	-0.62	-0.43	-1.09
Islip	-0.54	+0.65	-1.19	-1.08

First a disclaimer, precipitation during the summer season at station to station can be highly variable. Thunderstorms, which account for a majority of precipitation in the summer, are notoriously local. A thunderstorm can douse a region, and 10 miles down the road you can receive nary a drop. With this said, it was a dry summer with most locations receiving about 1.00” less rain than usual.

In June and July two stations come in drier than average, and in August all three stations look drier than average. Of note was July 20 – 22, where thunderstorms dropped over an inch of rain at each of the stations. Other than that, precipitation was highly random, suggesting that localized thunderstorms were responsible for the bulk of precipitation. Perhaps it was the lack of organized large precipitation bearing systems that resulted in the drier than average summer.

In Conclusion:
Well that’s it for our little memory exercise. How did you do? The conclusion is that it was a warm, dry summer. If you’re like me – you did poorly, and that bodes not so well for our species colloquial memories of climate. Next time Uncle Walter tells you how cold it was when he was your age, ask him what he thought of the

It's Evolution Baby!

2008-08-27T09:51:00.004-04:00

Lee sent this along to me, and I thought I'd share. It's famed evolutionary ecologist Richard Dawkins reading the hate mail he gets from Creationists. This clip's audio straddles the line between Safe for Work and Not Safe for Work, so I'd turn the speakers down a bit before viewing.

It blows my mind that people could not realize evolution to be the truth. If the Catholic Church can reconcile evolution with faith why can't these people?

Day Hike: Shadmoor State Park

2008-08-26T17:00:00.009-04:00

Living inside of the densely populated New York Metro region it can be hard to remember that beautiful pristine environments to be enjoyed are only a short trip away.
One such location is Shadmoor State Park in Montauk, NY. Shadmoor was recently acquired by a joint effort of the Nature Conservancy, New York State Department of Parks and Recreation and East Hampton Town, the details of which are summed up well in this New York Times article. Despite offering amazing views and great natural scenery, there isn’t much out on the internet about Shadmoor, so I wanted to take a moment and offer a bit of commentary.

How to Get There
Shadmoor is less than half a mile east of Montauk Village on the east end of the south fork of Long Island. Montauk is serviced infrequently by the LIRR, and it is possible to walk from the Montauk train station to Shadmoor. Bicyclers are very common out on the east end and the terrain relatively flat. The easiest way to get there however is by car. Take Rt. 27 east from Montauk Village, there is a parking lot a little less than half a mile out of Montauk, that serves as a trail head to Shadmoor’s trails.

Little Bit of History

The grounds of Shadmoor State Park have served two major purposes. The first is as Camp Wikoff, the landing place and quarantine for Theodore Roosevelt and his soldiers as they returned from the Spanish American War. The second major use of the land is as an observation point and coastal defense bunker during World War II. These bunkers still exist on the premises and trails lead directly to the bunkers for up close inspection.

Recommendations

Bring sunscreen. The landscape is covered with barrier island type vegetation, as such there is a dearth of trees, and virtually no shade during the middle of the day.

Go to the bathroom before you enter the park. The park has no infrastructure other than trails, trail markers and a few signs. Hit the head in Montauk before venturing to the park.

Bring a blanket for a picnic. The park offers truly amazing vistas of the ocean and surrounding lands. Bring a blanket, pack a lunch and make an afternoon of it.

Park Features
Day Hikers Delight
The park, although small in size, offers over 3 miles of hikes. We covered most of the park and sat down for a lovely picnic lunch in just over 2 hours. It’s a great stop on your way east to the lighthouse, but not enough to fill up your day.

The hikes are very easy, although there is are quite a number of small hills and ridges to cover. There is no shade from the sun, so you do tend to get warm quickly. As you get nearer to the ocean refreshing ocean breezes act to cool you off.

Hypothetically you can get down to the beach via a series of staircases. We did not find said staircases, and they are not located on the map at the trailhead. We did see folks hiking down with surfboards and later saw them on the beach, so it is indeed possible to do so!

Flora

The vegetation you view is very different than that one might observe in a deciduous or coniferous forest. The New York State Parks website says there are black cherry trees and the endangered species gerardia in the park. Being not a botanist, I can’t tell you what was there – but it was enjoyable to inspect such unique plants.

Bunkers

The World War II bunker relics are a neat look at history. World War II is fading in prominence in American memory, partly due to the fact that the war took place mainly on foreign ground. The bunkers right here in the backyard bring the war home to a certain extent. This article from Newsday reports that the bunkers were built to look like cottages from the water, and I have to say it’s true, it doesn’t feel like you are in the midst of the military-industrial complex while you are in the park.

Vistas

The parks most attractive feature by far is the amazing bluffs that the trails end at. The park is home to Long Islands highest bluffs, and it’s possible to walk right up to the edge and take a peek! The views are stunning, the pictures presented here don’t to the park justice.

In Conclusion
The park is definitely worth a stop if you are in the area. However it’s small size prevents it from being a destination in and of itself. As part of a tour of the east end, perhaps on bicycle, it is however highly recommended.

And, don't forget the picnic!

Hot topics

2008-08-25T11:47:00.002-04:00

My folder of articles that I wanted to talk about is filling up much quicker than I can blog! So here, presented without comment are a number of news stories that you guys might find interesting (and also a picture of a wildflower from Shadmoor State Park taken yesterday).

It’s hard to believe but there are folks out there who don’t consider evolution to be valid science theory. Here’s the story of one teacher’s quest to address that.

Thomas Friedman wrote about John McCain’s energy policy earlier this week in the Times.

A story detailing how anoxic regions, or lifeless bodies of water where oxygen levels are near zero, have been increasing globally in recent years.

A U.S. Court of Appeals dealt a major blow to the Bush administration’s policies regarding their regulation or perhaps more accurately de-regulation of the Clean Air Act.

Stories like these will become more common as humans continue to push into regions that were previously wild.

And lastly, check out John Carroll’s photo-journal detailing his great research work on scallops in the Peconics.

Update on the Press Conference

2008-08-22T17:17:00.004-04:00

The report from the press conference in Southampton is in from our crack correspondent Champ Kind…er….John Carroll. Here are some highlights:

Amongst others, in attendance were Congressman Tim Bishop (D, NY-1), State Assemblyman Fred Thiele and University President “Don’t Call Me” Shirley Strum-Kinney.

New conference was covered by local television outlets; News 12 Long Island, and Channel 55 out of Riverhead.

Announced publicly the $3.7 million dollar Institute for Ocean Conservation.

The institutes first project will be working on “forage fish fisheries” including anchovies, silversides and bunker amongst others.

State Assemblyman Fred Thiele announced nearly $7 million in state funding to build a state of the art new marine station at Stony Brook – Southampton.

Dr. Chris Gobler of SoMAS was recognized by Congressman Tim Bishop for his outstanding research on local issues.

A tour of Shinnecock Bay was given to the dignitaries in attendance by SoMAS graduate students.

John also noted that the press conference was well attended and that there was delicious finger food available for lunch (which made me kick myself for not attending). By his description its possible that more Southampton T-shirts were worn today than in the past 3 months combined...

Thanks John for the coverage…

Alternative and Renewable Energies

2008-08-22T16:17:00.003-04:00

Back at blogcentral today, working very hard on producing some utterly useless data (shown above). So far the past two days, 14 hours in the lab, zero chucks of useful data. I am told this is how the isotope cookie crumbles on a daily basis, so I had better get used to it.

Anyway, I wanted to discuss what exactly “alternative energy” and “renewable energy” means because I think the media often muddles the two expressions, and the definition is lost in the resulting fracas.

An alternative energy source is one that comes from a non-fossil fuel source.

A renewable energy source is one that the fuel or energy source is rejuvenated quicker by natural processes than we consume the fuel.

Let’s look at a few examples of energy sources and try to categorize them in terms of the definitions above.

Coal

Alternative: Coal is not an alternative fuel, as it is a fossil fuel.
Renewable: Coal is not renewable. Even though it is slowly regenerated, it is produced on a timescale much slower than we consume it.
Environmental Impact: Coal burning is a leading cause of emission of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen bearing compounds to the atmosphere. The process of mining coal is also quite damaging to the environment, and generally to human health.

Natural Gas and Oil

Alternative: Natural gas and oil are not an alternative fuels, as they are fossil fuel.
Renewable: Natural gas and oil are not renewable.
Environmental Impact: Natural gas burning and oil consumption are the leading cause of emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Burning of natural gas and oil produces also generally produces volatile organic compounds and releases nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere. The process of extraction is damaging to the environment, and is expected to become moreso when we extracting oil shale and tar for oil.

Nuclear Energy

Alternative: Nuclear energy is an alternative fuel since it does not consume fossil fuels.
Renewable: Nuclear energy is not renewable. Uranium and plutonium ore are a limited resource.
Environmental Impact: Nuclear waste is an obvious concern. Retrieval of uranium and plutonium for refinement by means of strip mining can be quite damaging to the environment. Accidental releases, contrary to public opinion, from nuclear power plants are not a legitimate concern given significant advances in nuclear technology over the past 30 to 40 years.

Biofuels

Alternative: Biofuels are alternative fuels as they are not fossil fuel derived. Ethanol produced from corn should be considered a fossil fuel as significant quantities of fossil fuels are required to produce it.
Renewable: The major draw of biofuels is that is renewable. To be truly renewable in the long run, sustainable farming practices must be developed.
Environmental Impact: Varies strongly from biofuel to biofuel. Biofuels include wood, ethanol from corn or sugarcane, manure and vegetable oils. Some are relatively low impact, others like corn based ethanol are environmentally irresponsible and cause significant harm.

Solar

Alternative: Yes. Solar power is an alternative to fossil fuel.
Renewable: Yes. So long as there is a sun, we have solar power available.
Environmental Impact: The major challenge with solar power is improving the technology of converting sunlight to useable energy. Short of conversion of natural terrain to solar farms, the impacts of solar technology on the environment is minimal.

Hydro-Electric

Alternative: Yes. Hydro-electric is an alternative to fossil fuel.
Renewable: Yes. So long as there is a rain and the tides, hydro-electric power available.
Environmental Impact: Varies from application to application. The use of hydro-electric dams can impact rivers and lakes. The use of tidal dams or tidal turbines is somewhat less damaging.

Wind

Alternative: Yes. Wind is an alternative to fossil fuel.
Renewable: Yes. So long as there is a sun creating heating thermal imbalances on the Earth, we have wind power available.
Environmental Impact: Wind power is the most promising alternative energy source because wind is abundant and cheap. The challenge is placing wind turbines in the appropriate location. Chris J brought up some interesting thoughts regarding the viability of wind turbines in an urban environment that I will address in a future post.

Hopefully that clears up the difference between an alternative energy source and a renewable energy source. Next time we’ll pick up with alternative energy production in urban in the New York environment. We’ll try to tackle the question, what are the challenges and opportunities associated with each type of energy?

Breaking News: Institute for Ocean Conservation to be formed in Stony Brook

2008-08-22T11:00:00.002-04:00

BREAKING NEWS

Metro Environmental Blog has learned that within the hour, at approximately 11:15 am the Pew Charitable Trust in conjunction with Stony Brook University will form the Institute for Ocean Conservation at Stony Brook University. Details are still forthcoming and will be announced at the Marine Station at Southampton later today. What is known is that a large number of staff members from the Pew Ocean Institute at the University of Miami in Florida are moving north to join the faculty and staff at the School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at Stony Brook University. The Pew Charitable Trust will contribute $3.7 million to help start the institute.

I am cautiously optimistic about this new institute. The Pew Charitable Trust has a history of funding non-biased, non-partisan research projects covering a variety of social and scientific issues. Hopefully the Institute for Ocean Conservation will continue this proud tradition and produce research results and conduct scientific outreach which helps shape US environmental policy in a positive way.

This move has potential huge positive implications for the New York Metro Region. This institute may direct money to studying local water bodies, and the results may help decision makers to make good decisions. This new institute may result in increased cooperation between local regulatory agencies and not-for-profit research groups. And lastly this institute will likely increase funds available to regional universities to conduct groundbreaking research.

Metro Environmental Blog has correspondent John Carroll on the scene and updates will be posted as soon as they are made available.

New York: Alternative Energy Capital of the World?

2008-08-21T15:54:00.006-04:00

Great article in the New York Times yesterday about how New York City aims to provide renewable energy to the city in the next few years.

In a plan that would drastically remake New York City’s skyline and shores, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is seeking to put wind turbines on the city’s bridges and skyscrapers and in its waters as part of a wide-ranging push to develop renewable energy.

….

“When it comes to producing clean power, we’re determined to make New York the No. 1 city in the nation,” Mr. Bloomberg said as he outlined his plans in a speech Tuesday night in Las Vegas, where a major conference on alternative energy is under way.

Sounds good. My initial response to this news is that even though this plan may never see the light of day, it’s great that New Yorkers are hearing that alternative energies can be generated in their backyards. It’s important that New Yorkers put their money where their mouth is, and try to develop energy sources locally, rather than importing energy from California and Arizona. Mayor Bloomberg agrees:

“In New York,” he said in his speech, “we don’t think of alternative power as something that we just import from other parts of the nation.”

Oh but Mr. Bloomberg good sir, I’m afraid we do. A similar project, although smaller in scope, was proposed off the south shore of Long Island. It was rejected handily by Long Islanders mostly due to cost considerations (i.e. it would be really expensive per watt of energy produced), but there was also sizeable objections to obscurations to the view off of Jones Beach.

So what makes the mayor so confident that building wind turbines off of Queens and on top of the George Washington Bridge will not face similar challenges?

Rohit Aggarwala, the director of the city’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, said that turbines on buildings would likely be much smaller than offshore ones. Several companies are experimenting with models that look like eggbeaters, which the Bloomberg administration says could be integrated into the spires atop the city’s tall buildings. “”You can make them so small that people think they are part of the design,” Mr. Aggarwala said.
“If rooftop wind can make it anywhere, this is a great city,” he said. “We have a lot of tall buildings.”

Well it’s a start I guess. Certainly less visible turbines would be easier for New Yorkers. who are quite proud of their skyline, to accept.

But if New York State has any source of alternative energies, it is wind power. As the figure above shows, the waters off of Long Island and Lake Ontario are considered to be near the highest classification of wind power. Likewise on shore, the Southern Tier, Tug Hill Plateau and nearly all lands downwind of the Great Lakes are good spots for wind turbines as well (not shown).

Contrast that with solar energy. As you can tell from this figure (taken from this fantastic textbook by Botkin and Keller), New York State as a whole ranks very poor in terms of potential solar energy. Of course any one who’s lived here for a winter could tell you that just as easily without a fancy picture -- but none the less solar energy as a future power source in New York will be dependent upon technological advances.

New York City has long done well in thinking ahead of environmental problems and Bloomberg’s administration has been no exception (in fact Mayor Bloomberg has espoused some rather progressive environmental views, at other points during his tenure.). New York City has adopted an aggressive policy of purchasing and preserving land surrounding their extensive reservoir system in an attempt to control water quality. As a result, the city is saving money long term by avoiding the high costs of energy and chemicals for water purification. As an affective bonus this land is preserved from development and adds to the impressive quantity of land preserved in the Catskill State Preserve. But the achievements in the Catskills would be dwarfed by the prospect of the United States largest city developing alternative energies enough to power itself.

Correlations, Shifting Baselines and Lupus

2008-08-20T17:28:00.003-04:00

A few quick hits today.

Correlation is NOT Causation

So after winning the softball championship last night the only thing left to do was celebrate. So after the game the team full of scientists and our scientist friends came over to the house and we grilled up plentiful quantities of hot dogs, burgers of all varieties and consumed an equally plentiful quantity of ice cold brews. Needless to say after seeing this news from the New York Times, I’m sure everyone in attendance may have second thoughts on the latter half of our consumption last evening.

The more beer scientists drink, the less likely they are to have a paper published or cited, according to a new study by Thomas Grim, an ornithologist at Palacky University, Czech Republic.
Grim surveyed the behavior of Czech scientists and found a correlation between amount of beer consumed and papers published.

Something that one needs to remind your audience in any publication relying on a correlation study is that correlation is not causation. To anyone who has taken a class in statistics, no doubt the instructor repeated this saying ad nauseum – but it is worth repeating.

The study demonstrates a mathematical relationship between the number of publications a scientist has made and the quantity of beer consumed. The study does not however, explain the “physics” of the problem; do scientists who fail more turn to beer to ease their pain or do scientists who drink more tend to produce lousy results? This study does not answer this question, thus the findings are quite limited.

I have quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that suggest those scientists who enjoy a good brew publish okay in the United States.

Shifting Baselines
Resident zoologist and sole blog reader Mikey P brought up a good point in the comments on Monday:

Did you know that many of today's household pests are invasive or non-endemic species?

From what I remember, these include but are not limited to:
- House Sparrows (among other sparrows)
- Rats (both black and brown rats, aka "roof" rats and Norway rats, respectively)
- Cockroaches (German and American are the most common, non-native)
- Pigeons

Most of these actually came over during colonial periods.

Thanks for the knowledge Mikey! In addition to what Mikey listed, you can consider any wild formerly domesticated animal such as feral cats and wild dogs to be invasive species as well. In fact domesticated cats cause very high mortality in birds in suburban and urban areas.

These species aren't traditionally thought of as non-native, presumably because they've been here so long and that we've either adapted to having them around or are just used to dealing with them in our societal memory.

Societal memory is a serious issue in environmental science. What one generation considers to be “natural” may be radically different from what three generations previously considered “natural” to be. An excellent example of this, and one purported by Daniel Pauley of the University of British Columbia, is how the size of fishes caught by fishermen has changed the way we look at fish.

The image shown above (thanks Lyndie) demonstrates both “societal memory” and “shifting baselines.” In each image the people catching the fish are quite proud of their “large” catch. The difference is that in older days catchers were indeed bigger than they are today. Trends have been observed by fisheries biologists showing that as humans selectively remove the largest of each species, the gene pool of the fish species becomes dominated by smaller sized fish, thus fish shrink.

But the concept of “shifting baselines” applies to more than just fisheries. It applies to what a generation considers to be “virgin forest” or what a generation considers to be “pristine water quality.”

Last Hit
Today’s picture of the day from national geographic is can’t miss:

Climate vs. Weather

2008-08-19T16:46:00.004-04:00

I apologize for today’s short post. Today is the Stony Brook University Intramural Softball championship game, and I have to leave the office early to hold down 3rd base. Tomorrow we’ll pick back up with “serious” environmental dialogue and address the insight that this blogs only reader, Mikey P brought to the table.

Weather versus Climate
The most difficult lecture for me to give to the students in my Environmental Problems and Solutions class at Stony Brook Southampton is the lecture on Global Climate. Specifically, trying to explain to the students what the major difference is between weather and climate. Here then are the definitions of climate and weather respectively from the American Heritage Dictionary.

cli•mate n.

1. The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.
2. A region of the earth having particular meteorological conditions: lives in a cold climate.
3. A prevailing condition or set of attitudes in human affairs: a climate of unrest.

Climate implies a long term series of conditions, the average of which we consider to be the “climate of a region.” It’s also important to consider the expected variability associated with a region, for example in April one could expect a day with a high of 30 or a day with a high of 70, both of which are within normal bounds, neither of which alone truly describe the climate of April.

weath•er n.

1. The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure.
2.
1. Adverse or destructive atmospheric conditions, such as high winds or heavy rain: encountered weather five miles out to sea.
2. The unpleasant or destructive effects of such atmospheric conditions: protected the house from the weather.
3. weathers Changes of fortune: had known him in many weathers.

Weather, the definition implies atmospheric conditions at one time. The weather can vary greatly from one day to the next, whereas the climate should vary only slightly from day to day or even week to week for a region.

Anyway I bring this up because today is a good example of why we need to include a degree of variability when ascribing climate to any region. The weather map below, taken from http://www-frd.fsl.noaa.gov/mesonet/ shows the wide range of temperatures in the Northeastern US today.

Today temperatures range from a very autumnal upper 50’s in the Adirondacks, Green, and White Mountains, to the 60’s across most of Western New York and the Catskills, to the 70’s throughout most of southern New England and the Hudson Valley to more a more “seasonable” lower 80’s in New York City and Long Island. However just to the south in New Jersey and Pennsylvania temperatures are in the 90’s with high humidity – the epitome of an August day along the Eastern US coastline. And of course far to the south Tropical Storm Fay continues to subsume Florida with rain and wind.

Any way, the point of all of this is just to say that when we define climate we need to be careful to include variability in our description. Today’s cool temperatures are part of a “normal” climate for the Northeast – although one may consider this to be somewhat extreme weather. This is a good example that one could use to explain the difference between climate and weather.

Empire State Invasives

2008-08-18T17:07:00.003-04:00

Well, blogcentral managed to survive the deluge last Friday relatively unscathed. Today drips of brown water continue to inundate the kitchen area of the lab. I am trying very hard to convince myself that the fetid water is simply laden with rust, but I must admit that my overactive imagination is causing me much concern.

New York State Invasive Species
Anyway, we were chatting about invasive species last Friday, specifically the red lionfish. Sometimes it’s hard to understand the impacts of invasive species until you’ve seen it firsthand in your local environment. So I thought it’d be neat to take a peek at some other invasive species that are impacting the New York Region. The Department of Environmental Conservation lists a number of invasive species that are a major threat to agriculture and the environment in New York State. Today we will focus on three, Zebra Muscles, Chinese Mitten Crabs and Gypsy Moths.

Zebra Muscle

Perhaps the most famous invasive species in New York State, the Zebra Muscle has major impacts on the local ecology as it is able to out-compete native benthic organisms. It also impacts human activities directly by being quite adept at clogging intake pipes for industry, including power plants.

The map shown here courtesy of the USGS shows that Zebra Muscles are present in every major New York State water body from Lake Champlain, to the St. Lawrence River, Lake Ontario, the Erie Canal and the Hudson River.

Chinese Mitten Crab

The DEC states that it is the most recent invasive species to strike the state. It has been spotted primarily in the lower Hudson River, and has slowly been moving northward (reaching as far north as Dutchess County). Chinese Mitten Crabs compete with the endemic Blue Crab, whom may be adversely affected by this invasive species.

The Mitten Crab has long been a problem along the West Coast, more recently it has moved into the Chesapeake and appears to have moved north into New York waters only in past years. The species has been unable to thrive in the St. Lawrence waterway, despite being introduced, but may have more luck in the warmer waters of the Hudson Estuary.

Photo credit: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/mittencrab_child.shtml

Gypsy Moths

Yuck. You’ve no doubt seen their rather unattractive nests in trees in your own back yard. The success of this invasive species varies greatly from year to year. Sometimes their presence is not noticeable, other times they decimate the canopy in localized regions.

In addition to the seemingly omni-present Gypsy Moth, New York State has also been stricken with two other species of moths, the Forest Tent Caterpillar and Eastern Tent Caterpillar, both of which have caused major damage to native trees in past years.

Photo credit: USGS, http://www.invasive.org/images/768x512/2652087.jpg

Other Transport Mechanisms
We had also talked a bit about methods of introduction of invasive species. One I didn’t mention, but that is getting a lot of attention in New York State is the transport of firewood. Wood is home to many species of burrowing insects. When transported from region to region, we may accidentally be transporting non-native species and introducing them to new habitats, where they may negatively affect local tree populations. Many tree species aren’t able to adapt quickly enough to fight off infestation with recently introduced insects. Many formerly common tree species in New York such as the American Chestnut and the White Birch have in recent years been decimated by invasive species.

In New York State a major concern is transport of insects in firewood into the Catskill and Adirondack State Parks. Many campers bring with them firewood from home, and in the process may be rapidly spreading these invasive bugs.

Here is the Department of Environmental Conservation’s poster asking people to take care with their firewood:

Red Lionfish Invasion!

2008-08-15T15:11:00.004-04:00

It’s raining so hard here at blogcentral, that the roof is leaking. While a few drops of water may not mean a lot to most, when you are working in a room with machines using tens of thousands of volts of electricity, this becomes a real threat. Thus, this first post may be our last.

...................

I read an interesting article by Daniel McFadden of the Associated Press earlier this week about invasive species in the Gulf of Mexico. I think invasive species is an extremely ambiguous term that no doubt is confusing to many, and it’s worth clarifying our terminology before moving onward.

An invasive species, is by most definitions, a species that is not native to its current habitat that is some how harmful to the habitat it has come to reside in. By not native we mean that it is not traditionally found in its new ecosystem, and has by some manner only recently arrived. Today when we talk about invasive species we most often mean introduced species, and that is to say species that we as humans moved into their new habitats.

There are a number of invasive species that are likely familiar to Americans including zebra muscles in the Great Lakes, “flying” carp in the Misssissippi River and Kudzu in the Southeastern United States. The focus of the quoted article, the red lionfish, is looking likely to become a prime example of invasive species in a major vacation hotspot, the Caribbean.

Introduction of new marine species by humans can be done in a number of ways, most often by maritime vessels releasing ballast water. Ballast water in water that ships take in at one location to stabilize the vessel, and often release it far away areas where they are docking. This ballast water often contains fish and other aquatic animals larvae and eggs that may not be native to a region.

Other major methods of introduction of invasive species include accidental transport on ships and airplanes, and intentional transport of species for domestication or for pleasure viewing (e.g. zoos and aquariums).

Today’s example of an invasive species was transported by way of pleasure viewing.

“The red lionfish, a tropical native of the Indian and Pacific oceans that probably escaped from a Florida fish tank, is showing up everywhere - from the coasts of Cuba and Hispaniola to Little Cayman's pristine Bloody Bay Wall, one of the region's prime destinations for divers.”

….

”Researchers believe lionfish were introduced into the Atlantic in 1992, when Hurricane Andrew shattered a private aquarium and six of them spilled into Miami's Biscayne Bay, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

Yikes!

The lionfish in coral reef ecosystems represents a perfect storm. The lionfish is an aggressive animal that is able to out-compete native species. The lionfish is a voracious consumer of native species. And lastly, the lionfish has been introduced to an ecosystem that already under a great deal of stress.

Lionfish are likely to get a lot of attention in the upcoming years because they are both visible to tourists and somewhat hazardous to swimmers. But the real threat they pose is in terms of damage to the already fragile ecosystem they are invading.

“Wherever it appears, the adaptable predator corners fish and crustaceans up to half its size with its billowy fins and sucks them down in one violent gulp.
Research teams observed one lionfish eating 20 small fish in less than 30 minutes.
This may very well become the most devastating marine invasion in history," said Mark Hixon, an Oregon State University marine ecology expert who compared lionfish to a plague of locusts. "There is probably no way to stop the invasion completely."

In addition to its voracious appetite, the fish has shown a surprisingly large range for a tropical fish, being spotted as far north as Rhode Island. According to my diving buddies, they have been seen in the waters of the south shore of Long Island as well.

The red lionfish represents a real challenge to marine planners trying to manage the delicate coral reefs. The effects of this species will be felt over a large latitude range from the Caribbean all the way into the Northeastern United States. Of course, this is only one of the many many species we have introduced and are in some way responsible for.