In 2017 I finished a two year project interviewing some of the world’s best known experts in Arctic studies, for the Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) update, a once in 5 year summation of all we have learned in this area.
The first 4 minutes of the video above are a clear and credible explanation of the bulge of arctic air we are currently seeing over North America, and why we will continue to see this more and more going forward.
Jeff Goodell’s book “The Water Will Come” became a best seller this year.
Here are excerpts of the interviews I did with him in Miami as he researched the book.
Jeff writes in the book about his 2013 flight with Dark Snow Project, along the calving wall of Jakobshaven glacier, in Greenland.
I interviewed Jeff just before we took off on that leg.
In advance of a giant break in the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica, I interviewed glaciologists Eric Rignot of NASA, and Jeremy Bassis, of the University of Michigan.
New York Times journalist Keith Schneider gave me one of the best interviews of 2017. Here’s a clip.
Noah Diffenbaugh in the NYTimes:
STANFORD, Calif. — This was a year of devastating weather, including historic hurricanes and wildfires here in the United States. Did climate change play a role? Increasingly, scientists are able to answer that question — and increasingly, the answer is yes.
My lab recently published a new framework for examining connections between global warming and extreme events. Other scientists are doing similar research. How would we go about testing whether global warming has influenced the events that occurred this year?
Consider Hurricane Harvey, which caused enormous destruction along the Gulf Coast; it will cost an estimated $180 billion to recover from the hurricane’s storm surge, high winds and record-setting precipitation and flooding. Did global warming contribute to this disaster?
The word “contribute” is key. This doesn’t mean that without global warming, there wouldn’t have been a hurricane. Rather, the question is whether changes in the climate raised the odds of producing extreme conditions.
Continue reading “How We Know Climate Change Affected Extremes in 2017”
I’ve often observed that a much cheaper option to the giant, roaring SUV/ORV is a simple bumper sticker that says, “Damn Right I have a Small Penis.”
Never more true than in the tiny-handed era of Trump.
Women have long surpassed men in the arena of environmental action; across age groups and countries, females tend to live a more eco-friendly lifestyle. Compared to men, women litter less, recycle more, and leave a smaller carbon footprint. Some researchers have suggested that personality differences, such as women’s prioritization of altruism, may help to explain this gender gap in green behavior.
Our own research suggests an additional possibility: men may shun eco-friendly behavior because of what it conveys about their masculinity. It’s not that men don’t care about the environment. But they also tend to want to feel macho, and they worry that eco-friendly behaviors might brand them as feminine.
The research, conducted with three other colleagues, consisted of seven experiments involving more than 2,000 American and Chinese participants. We showed that there is a psychological link between eco-friendliness and perceptions of femininity. Due to this “green-feminine stereotype,” both men and women judged eco-friendly products, behaviors, and consumers as more feminine than their non-green counterparts. In one experiment, participants of both sexes described an individual who brought a reusable canvas bag to the grocery store as more feminine than someone who used a plastic bag—regardless of whether the shopper was a male or female. In another experiment, participants perceived themselves to be more feminine after recalling a time when they did something good versus bad for the environment.
Continue reading “Snowflakes and Micropenises: Delicate Male Ego a Threat to Planet”
Homes at higher elevations in Miami are gaining value at a faster clip than those closer to sea level. It’s an accelerating trend, and it has residents and real estate agents — in Miami and other coastal communities — asking whether “climate gentrification” has arrived.
The term, which only recently entered the lexicon, describes the role of climate change in recalibrating land values, a phenomenon that ultimately could displace low-income and minority residents in a similar fashion as urban gentrification. As sea levels rise and flooding persists, the thinking goes in the case of Miami, waterfront property will lose some of its luster and higher-situated neighborhoods like Little Haiti and Little Havana will become more attractive.
The professor who was first to publish research using the phrase “climate gentrification” isn’t convinced that’s the main culprit in Miami. At least not yet. Jesse M. Keenan, a researcher on urban development and climate adaptation at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, tracked the rate of price appreciation since 1971 for more than 250,000 residential properties in Miami-Dade County, and compared those figures to elevation. Keenan found that properties at high elevations have long appreciated faster in Miami, mostly because of nonclimate factors.
However, since 2000, the correlation between elevation and price appreciation has grown stronger, which Keenan, in an interview with CBS MoneyWatch, suggested may be “early signaling” of preference for properties at higher elevations and a reaction to persistent nuisance flooding in lower areas.
Below, how this plays out in Miami.
Continue reading ““Climate Gentrification” – Sea Level’s Unexpected Impact”
Geologist and House candidate Jess Phoenix posted a tweet thread the other day explaining why scientists in congress is a good idea.
One question I hear a lot is “why should we send a scientist to Congress since you don’t know anything about making laws?” Our soundbite century shows its flaws here for 2 reasons. 1) scientists would kick ass at making laws, and 2) I’m much more than “just a scientist.
All scientists are by definition trained in the scientific method. It’s the process of using data gained through observations to remove uncertainties around a hypothesis in an effort to ascertain the truth. In other words, we use facts to understand our world.
In addition, field scientists like me are not white-coated lab dwellers (although I do love lab work & my lab-based friends). My work is done in the most extreme, dangerous conditions on the planet. Literally. Active volcanoes, remote mountains, scorching deserts, etc.
I lead expeditions of people who’ve never even camped before. It’s my job to keep them safe & do good science. Creative problem solving is the key to field research. I’ve fixed a blown tire sidewall with bubblegum, a ball point pen, and duct tape. Other scientists have too.
Scientists are adaptable, creative, and logical. We are trained to look at all available facts to work towards eliminating uncertainties. It’s our job, & it’s the job of a field scientist to find information that will save lives. Sounds like a good skillset for Congress to me.
Now to my 2nd point: my background. My life didn’t start when I went into geology 10 years ago, at the age of 25. Since I started at my first job (minimum wage retail at Best Buy) 18 years ago, I have worked in an array of jobs. Our economy doesn’t allow one career now.
Continue reading “Jess Phoenix: Why a Scientist for Congress?”
