78593601
submission
GregLaden writes:
Scientists track the global surface temperature, an average of readings from thermometers at approximately head height, and an estimate of sea surface temperatures, in order to track global warming. Over the last year or so we have been seeing many record breaking months, but this month, October 2016, both the Japan Meteorological Agency and NASA has identified October as an extraordinary month.
October 2016 is significantly warmer than any month in the NASA record, which goes back to 1880 (and there were no warmer months, likely, for thousands of years prior to that, or at least, not many).
From these data we can generate numerous rather impressive graphics showing a 12 month moving average, Octobers compared over time, year to date, etc.
76533715
submission
GregLaden writes:
The argument could be made that the organized effort to disrupt climate change science and the development of effective policies to address climate change is criminal, costing life and property. The effort is known to be generally funded by various actors and there are people and organizations that certainly make money on this seemingly nefarious activities. A group of prominent scientists have written a letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren asking for this to be investigated under RICO laws, which were originally designed to address organized crime.
76403565
submission
GregLaden writes:
There is promising research on converting atmospheric CO2 and water, using sunlight as a source of energy, into burnable liquid fuels.
This is not a carbon capture technique because the CO2 ultimately returns to the atmosphere after burning the fuel, but it could allow the production of enough liquid fuel to allow the rest of the motorized economy to switch to mainly electric.
There are key uses for liquid fuels, even if most "engines" become electric motors.
The science of how this works is fairly interesting, and a recent writeup in Science gives some of the details.
51476393
submission
GregLaden writes:
Last week Popular Science shut down comments on their web pages citing the damage being done to the public perception of science as their reason. Earlier research suggested that this might be a good idea because trollish negative comments can color the perception by readers of a news story. However, some have taken Popular Science’s move to be anti science, implying that science itself is positively affected by web and blog comments, as though these comments contributed to the science being done itself. Here, I take exception to this and suggest that while comments are important in relation to the public perception of science (which itself is important) blog and web commentary never, or only rarely, influences the process of scientific inquiry itself.
