Here we go again: Cranking up the volume: Sounds travel farther underwater as world's oceans become more acidic - It is common knowledge that the world's oceans and atmosphere are warming as humans release more and more carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere. However, fewer people realize that the chemistry of the oceans is also changing—seawater is becoming more acidic as carbon dioxide from the atmosphere dissolves in the oceans. According to a paper to be published this week by marine chemists at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, these changes in ocean temperature and chemistry will have an unexpected side effect—sounds will travel farther underwater.

Conservative projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the chemistry of seawater could change by 0.3 pH units by 2050 (see below for background information on pH and ocean acidification). In the October 1, 2008 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, Keith Hester and his coauthors calculate that this change in ocean acidity would allow sounds to travel up to 70 percent farther underwater. This will increase the amount of background noise in the oceans and could affect the behavior of marine mammals. (Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute)

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation funds research that 'finds a problem' -- there's a surprise... So, what have we got this time? Atmospheric CO₂ increase making oceans slightly less alkaline (thus, more acidic) -- check. Significance of this to marine critters? Well, nothing much really since they've nearly all evolved while atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were much higher and only about 10% of the last 250 million years have seen levels anywhere near as low as they are now. Cetaceans, with their evolutionary roots 30-50 million years ago, may find their sonar and communication range increasing back toward that achieved by their ancestors. Weasel factor ("suggest" "could"... ): moderate to high. Distraction from morning coffee: nil.

Sidebar: check out the axiomatic: "It is common knowledge that the world's oceans and atmosphere are warming as humans release more and more carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere." Is that true? Well, kind of. What measures we have suggest the world, including its oceans, has warmed somewhat since the Little Ice Age (nothing too contentious there) so that part is true. Similarly it is true that humans are using more fossil fuels and releasing more carbon dioxide from combustion, cement manufacture and use and so on. However, whether the latter is responsible for the former is highly contentious and doubtful. That it is common knowledge is equally doubtful given the increasingly expressed skepticism over gorebull warming. This is probably why there is such an effort to indoctrinate the young and if that effort succeeds then gorebull warming will be common knowledge. Chilling, isn't it?

Carbon surveillance: Mobile phones to track carbon footprint - Keeping track of your carbon footprint could become as simple as slipping a mobile phone in your pocket: a London-based start-up company has developed software for mobile phones that uses global positioning satellites to work out automatically whether you are walking, driving or flying and then calculate your impact on the environment. (The Guardian)

How long before politicians want to begin taxing you for your emissions based on this kind of constant surveillance? Already politicians want to track cars to tax road usage, issue carbon ration cards to control your purchasing power and so on, how long before they want to make this kind of nonsense compulsory?

Latest from the hair shirt killjoys: Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate change - People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change, a major new report warns.

The report, by the Food Climate Research Network, based at the University of Surrey, also says total food consumption should be reduced, especially "low nutritional value" treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates. (The Guardian)

Look, guys, 'runaway' climate change is not possible on our water-rich little world. Two effects circumvent the model fudge of water vapor feedback greatly magnifying enhanced greenhouse from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide: one is precipitation -- keep adding to humidity and you get cloud formation and precipitation, it's a locally self-limiting system, in other words and; two: the way to get more water vapor into the system is to enlarge the moist atmosphere zone, increasing cloud area and its associated albedo, thus returning more sunlight to space -- a global thermostat shutting off the heat. The first effect results in accelerated latent heat transfer (cooling the planet's surface) while the second reduces solar energy input (cooling the planet's surface).

Why? Carbon dioxide 'scrubber' captures greenhouse gases - University of Calgary climate change scientist David Keith and his team are working to efficiently capture the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide directly from the air, using near-commercial technology. (University of Calgary)

Atmospheric carbon dioxide supports life on Earth, what have these twits got against life?

Renewables Get Lost in Shuffle of Inter-Cameral Turf War; Taxpayer Wins - That’s great news for the taxpayer because renewable energy subsidies are a huge waste of money. When the government meddles in any emergent industry like renewables with tax favors, it is picking and choosing winners. But bureaucrats and politicians cannot be expected to invest well; instead they are prone to awarding constituents or pleasing superiors. This is the dynamic that produced synfuels, ethanol, futuregen, and a host of other government backed energy boondoggles. (William Yeatman, Cooler Heads Digest)

The Pickens Plan: Questions Unanswered - Introduction: On July 7, 2008, Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens introduced the “Pickens Plan,” an ambitious proposal to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil by one-third over the next ten years.1

The cornerstone of the Pickens Plan is replacing the natural gas now used to generate electricity with wind power, and then using the saved natural gas to power vehicles that presently run on gasoline.2

It’s a bold plan from a bold man.

Pickens should be credited for understanding that America has an urgent need to secure its energy independence. His website says: “As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion out of the country this year alone – that’s four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.”3

While Capitol Hill offers partisan bickering, Pickens appears to be offering a solution. And, as Pickens is prepared to spend $58 million to promote his plan,4 his advocacy could have an enormous impact on America’s energy policy for decades to come.

But while Pickens appears confident, his claims raise questions. Has oil production finally and irrevocably peaked, as Pickens claims? Why use wind power instead of nuclear power? Are natural gas-powered vehicles a viable alternative to gasoline-powered cars, and would switching to them improve America’s security? What does Pickens believe the federal government should do to make his plan a reality? Might he or the firms he owns benefit financially from such federal aid? (Reece A. Epstein and David A. Ridenour, National Policy Center)

Next prohibition: salt - Here is a question I added to my chapter on logic today.

New York City “Health Czar” Thomas Frieden (D), who successfully banned smoking and trans fat in restaurants and who now wants to add salt to the list, said in an issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes that “cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States.” Describe why no government or no person, no matter the purity of their hearts, can ever eliminate the leading cause of death.

I’ll answer that in a moment. First, Frieden is engaged in yet another attempt by the government to increase control over your life. Their reasoning goes “You are not smart enough to avoid foods which we claim—without error—are bad for you. Therefore, we shall regulate or ban such foods and save you from making decisions for yourself. There are some choices you should not be allowed to make.” (William M. Briggs, Statistician)