Saturday, March 24, 2007
St Mary's Wilderness, British Columbia
For experienced backpackers only, with strong route finding skills. No trails exist. I did Photoshop the first one (no fooling ay).
St Mary's Wilderness, British Columbia
Located ~60 klicks north of Kimberly, visited by ~100 people annually. Doubled from ten years ago. Eat at Snowdrift Cafe coming and going. Enjoy a couple Okanogan drafts and pick up some Grizzly Bear coffee, local roast, while you're at it.
A Bad Day of Skiing is Better Than A Great Day in the Office
Hmmm, which would you rather do? And leave the Crackberry at home please, unless you're planning to try skeet shooting with it.
Bruce Cockburn
We were fortunate to see an incredible show Wednesday night in Albany. Bruce played solo, with four different guitars: two six string (looked like Gibsons), a 12 string and a dobro. His playlist will be up at www.cockburnproject.net soon. But, for those interested, a German station will be re-playing one of his February German shows on April 10th at 205am German time, which is 805pm April 9th for those of you on the right coast and 505pm for those on the left coast. Here's the direct link:
..from cockburnproject.net:
Frank lets us know that one of Bruce's German solo shows was recorded for a German radio station. The gig was 2. Februar 2007 in Quasimodo Berlin, 22.00Uhr, "Life Short Call Now - Tour 2007", Bruce Cockburn (vocals & guitar) with Angela Desveaux (vocals & guitar).
The show will be broadcasted on 10 April 2007 beginning 2.05am (local German Time)
There is a live-stream of that radio station available so everybody who is interested can access.
The link to the radio station is: www.dradio.de/dkultur/.
The link to the mp3-stream is: www.dradio.de/streaming/dkultur.m3u.
The link to the OGG-Vorbis-stream with better quality than the mp3-stream is: www.dradio.de/streaming/dkultur_hq_ogg.m3u.
..from cockburnproject.net:
Frank lets us know that one of Bruce's German solo shows was recorded for a German radio station. The gig was 2. Februar 2007 in Quasimodo Berlin, 22.00Uhr, "Life Short Call Now - Tour 2007", Bruce Cockburn (vocals & guitar) with Angela Desveaux (vocals & guitar).
The show will be broadcasted on 10 April 2007 beginning 2.05am (local German Time)
There is a live-stream of that radio station available so everybody who is interested can access.
The link to the radio station is: www.dradio.de/dkultur/.
The link to the mp3-stream is: www.dradio.de/streaming/dkultur.m3u.
The link to the OGG-Vorbis-stream with better quality than the mp3-stream is: www.dradio.de/streaming/dkultur_hq_ogg.m3u.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
February Dip
17 inches of beautiful ice
Even the chicken had a blast
Wow, some people really can walk on water
Even the chicken had a blast
Wow, some people really can walk on water
Friday, March 9, 2007
On A Swift Boat to a Warmer World
On a swift boat to a warmer world
By Daniel P. Schrag | December 17, 2006
Daniel P. Schrag is professor of earth and planetary sciences at Harvard and director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment. 
I AM A climate scientist and an optimist. This may seem like a contradiction, with all the talk of scorching heat waves and bigger, deadlier hurricanes. But it's not.
Let's be clear: I am not a skeptic on climate change. In my earth science courses, I teach that burning fossil fuel is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels not seen on Earth for more than 30 million years. In public lectures, I show pictures of what would happen to Florida and the Gulf Coast if half the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, asking people to imagine abandoning New Orleans and Miami. I tell people that, unless we take action to reduce emissions, the question is not whether this is going to occur, but when.
Yet I am an optimist because I believe we can fix the climate change problem. We can deploy the technologies to meet our energy needs while slashing carbon emissions: plug-in hybrids, windmills, carbon sequestration for coal plants, and even nuclear power. We have responded to larger challenges in the past, such as when FDR appropriated most of the nation's industrial capacity to build ships, tanks, and airplanes for World War II.
Unfortunately, I am a little less optimistic today than I was a couple of weeks ago, before testifying at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. It was Senator James Inhofe's last hearing as chair of the committee, and the focus was on media coverage of global warming. I was invited by the Democratic staff to counter arguments that global warming is a hoax perpetrated on the American people by scientists like me.
Inhofe is a climate skeptic. But I still hoped I could help educate our lawmakers -- maybe not Inhofe, but perhaps some of the others. In my opening statement, I explained that global warming is not a partisan issue. America should lead the world and capitalize on an extraordinary business opportunity as we invest in new energy technologies, I said.
Then I watched in horror as Inhofe's witnesses spouted outrageous claims intended to deceive and distort. Two were scientists associated with industry-funded think tanks. They described global warming as a "mass delusion" among the scientific community, sowing confusion by misrepresenting the ice core data that connects carbon dioxide and temperature over glacial cycles, and claiming that "global warming stopped in 1998" -- an anomalously warm year. They even recommended burning as much fossil fuel as possible to prevent another ice age.
Unfortunately, the format does not allow for direct debate. Some senators defended the integrity of the scientific community, including Barbara Boxer, who will become chair of the committee in January. But amid the collegiality and decorum that is the tradition in the Senate, no one stood up and called this hearing what it was: a gathering of liars and charlatans, sponsored by those industries who want to protect their profits.
Later that day, Inhofe issued a press release that specifically highlighted my testimony, claiming that I "agreed" with him that the Kyoto Protocol "would have almost no impact on the climate even if all the nations fully complied." In fact, I had interrupted him during the hearing to object to this claim, reminding him that Kyoto was only conceived as a first step, and never as a long-term solution.
I later learned that Inhofe's communications director, Marc Morano, was a key figure in publicizing the swift boat veterans' attack on John Kerry in 2004. Morano, it seems, is still up to his old tricks, twisting the facts to support his boss's outrageous claims. This made my visit complete: a glimpse at our government that sees the world only through glasses tinted by special interests, which treats science as a political football, no matter what is at stake.
I am still an optimist. We still have time to avert a climate catastrophe. But I am not counting on government, or at least this government, to lead us toward a solution. As our leaders accept the outrageous spectacle I saw the other day as just a normal day in Congress, we will have to take the first step without them.
By Daniel P. Schrag | December 17, 2006
Daniel P. Schrag is professor of earth and planetary sciences at Harvard and director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment. 
I AM A climate scientist and an optimist. This may seem like a contradiction, with all the talk of scorching heat waves and bigger, deadlier hurricanes. But it's not.
Let's be clear: I am not a skeptic on climate change. In my earth science courses, I teach that burning fossil fuel is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels not seen on Earth for more than 30 million years. In public lectures, I show pictures of what would happen to Florida and the Gulf Coast if half the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, asking people to imagine abandoning New Orleans and Miami. I tell people that, unless we take action to reduce emissions, the question is not whether this is going to occur, but when.
Yet I am an optimist because I believe we can fix the climate change problem. We can deploy the technologies to meet our energy needs while slashing carbon emissions: plug-in hybrids, windmills, carbon sequestration for coal plants, and even nuclear power. We have responded to larger challenges in the past, such as when FDR appropriated most of the nation's industrial capacity to build ships, tanks, and airplanes for World War II.
Unfortunately, I am a little less optimistic today than I was a couple of weeks ago, before testifying at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. It was Senator James Inhofe's last hearing as chair of the committee, and the focus was on media coverage of global warming. I was invited by the Democratic staff to counter arguments that global warming is a hoax perpetrated on the American people by scientists like me.
Inhofe is a climate skeptic. But I still hoped I could help educate our lawmakers -- maybe not Inhofe, but perhaps some of the others. In my opening statement, I explained that global warming is not a partisan issue. America should lead the world and capitalize on an extraordinary business opportunity as we invest in new energy technologies, I said.
Then I watched in horror as Inhofe's witnesses spouted outrageous claims intended to deceive and distort. Two were scientists associated with industry-funded think tanks. They described global warming as a "mass delusion" among the scientific community, sowing confusion by misrepresenting the ice core data that connects carbon dioxide and temperature over glacial cycles, and claiming that "global warming stopped in 1998" -- an anomalously warm year. They even recommended burning as much fossil fuel as possible to prevent another ice age.
Unfortunately, the format does not allow for direct debate. Some senators defended the integrity of the scientific community, including Barbara Boxer, who will become chair of the committee in January. But amid the collegiality and decorum that is the tradition in the Senate, no one stood up and called this hearing what it was: a gathering of liars and charlatans, sponsored by those industries who want to protect their profits.
Later that day, Inhofe issued a press release that specifically highlighted my testimony, claiming that I "agreed" with him that the Kyoto Protocol "would have almost no impact on the climate even if all the nations fully complied." In fact, I had interrupted him during the hearing to object to this claim, reminding him that Kyoto was only conceived as a first step, and never as a long-term solution.
I later learned that Inhofe's communications director, Marc Morano, was a key figure in publicizing the swift boat veterans' attack on John Kerry in 2004. Morano, it seems, is still up to his old tricks, twisting the facts to support his boss's outrageous claims. This made my visit complete: a glimpse at our government that sees the world only through glasses tinted by special interests, which treats science as a political football, no matter what is at stake.
I am still an optimist. We still have time to avert a climate catastrophe. But I am not counting on government, or at least this government, to lead us toward a solution. As our leaders accept the outrageous spectacle I saw the other day as just a normal day in Congress, we will have to take the first step without them.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Last Ski of The Winter?
A mess expected tonight and tomorrow, though just north of here, a foot of snow is forecast
Bear With Me
I somehow deleted my previous blog..everything. Arrgh. So, I'll try to recreate what was in there. I have no idea how this happened.
Starting All Over....Wouldnt it be Nice if US Media printed articles like this
The Big Question: What is La Niña, and will it cause serious climate disruption?
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 02 March 2007
Why are we asking this question now?
American scientists have warned that a weather phenomenon in the South Pacific known as "El Niño", which results in warm Pacific Ocean currents, is dying out and will be replaced by its opposite number, "La Niña". The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that cooler-than-normal water temperatures have developed at the surface in the east-central equatorial Pacific.
It means that La Niña conditions are likely to develop this spring and are set to strengthen over the next few months and could last for up to two years. This naturally occurring phenomenon is likely to reach peak intensity in December to February and then begin to weaken next March to May.
Does this have any wider implications?
One of the greatest concerns is that La Niña is associated with an increase in Atlantic hurricanes. It can also cause drier-than-usual conditions in the southern United States, which experienced a serious drought during the last La Niña some seven years ago. However, Australia and Indonesia, which often have droughts during El Niño years, can be wetter during a La Niña phase.
Conrad Lautenbacher, NOAA's administrator, warned that the next La Niña may mean a stormier yet drier time ahead for the United States: "Although other scientific factors affect the frequency of hurricanes, there tends to be a greater-than-normal number of Atlantic hurricanes and fewer-than-normal number of eastern Pacific hurricanes during La Niña events," he said. "During the winter, usual La Niña impacts include drier and warmer-than-average conditions over the southern United States."
How often does La Niña occur?
On average, El Niño and La Niña occur every three to five years. However, the actual interval between them has varied from two to seven years. La Niñas began this century with the first in 1903, followed by events in 1906, 1909, 1916, 1924, 1928, 1938, 1950, 1954, 1964, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1988, and 1995. The last La Niña began in 1998 and ended in 2001. These events typically continued into the following spring, although they can last longer. Since 1975, La Niñas have been only half as frequent as El Niños.
What causes La Niña?
Cooler-than-normal subsurface water in the tropical Pacific builds up, as eastern-moving winds and waves help to bring cold, deep water to the surface through a complex set of events that are still under study. Sea surface temperatures can fall to at much as 4C below normal. The warm body of water associated with El Niño - which expands to cover the tropics during this phase of the Pacific cycle - begins to shrink to the west during La Niña.
What is the difference between La Niña and El Niño?
Both terms refer to large-scale changes in sea-surface temperature across the central and eastern tropical Pacific. Usually, sea-surface readings off South America's west coast range from 15C to 20C, while they exceed 26C in the "warm pool" located in the central and western Pacific. This warm pool expands to cover the tropics during El Niño but shrinks to a small enclave in the west during La Niña.
La Niña events sometimes follow on the heels of El Niño conditions, although not always. Sometimes there is a "neutral" phase that is neither one nor the other. The scientific name for the phenomenon is the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and it describes the coupled ocean-atmosphere process that includes both El Niño and La Niña.
Does global warming influence La Niña or El Niño?
Scientists are still not sure about this. They want to know whether a warmer world is likely to produce more El Niños and La Niñas or cause more intense cycles to occur. According to NOAA: "At this time we can't preclude the possibility of links but it would be too early to definitely say there is a link." What is pretty clear, however, is that global warming is likely to increase the risk of extreme weather events associated with La Niña and El Niño. In other words, global warming is likely to make matters worse.
What is the origin of the name 'La Niña'?
Fishermen off the west coast of South America recognised the periodic appearance of warm water in their fishing grounds, which they called El Niño, which means "The Little Boy" or "Christ child" in Spanish. They called it this because the warm body of water usually appeared around Christmas time.
When scientists recognised that there was an opposite event in the southern Pacific oscillation, they dubbed it La Niña, which means "The Little Girl" in Spanish. La Niña is sometimes called El Viejo (Old Man), anti-El Niño, or simply "a cold event" or "a cold episode". There has been a confusing range of uses for the terms El Niño, La Niña and ENSO by both the scientific community and the general public.
Are there any environmental benefits of La Niña?
Coral bleaching - when coral reefs eject the microbes that give them their distinctive colours - appears to be worse during an El Niño phase, when Pacific Ocean temperatures get warmer. Coral bleaching was particularly pronounced during 1997-98 because a very strong El Niño occurred that year. The increase of sea temperatures caused by that El Niño was superimposed on the sea temperature warming trend observed in some parts of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, caused by global warming. Coral seem very sensitive to rising sea temperatures, so the cooler phase created by La Niña should in theory benefit corals, albeit temporarily given that ocean temperatures globally are tending to rise.
Is it true that La Niña and El Niño can affect the spin of the Earth?
Yes, but the effect is very small. El Niño results in a decrease in the earth's rotation rate, an increase in the length of day. La Niña tends to have the opposite effect.
El Niño is associated with a weakening of the tropical Pacific trade winds, and with a strengthening of the mid-latitude westerlies both at the surface and at higher altitudes. To balance these changes in atmospheric winds, the earth's rotation rate decreases in order to conserve total angular momentum of the earth-atmosphere system. Conservation of angular momentum is a basic physical principle which operates, for example, when a ballerina brings her arms closer to her body to spin faster. The change, however, is only about 1 millisecond at the peak of a strong El Niño. There are 86,400 seconds in a day, so this change represents one part in 100 million. Such a change will have little effect on normal activities on a human scale, such as flying an aeroplane.
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 02 March 2007
Why are we asking this question now?
American scientists have warned that a weather phenomenon in the South Pacific known as "El Niño", which results in warm Pacific Ocean currents, is dying out and will be replaced by its opposite number, "La Niña". The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that cooler-than-normal water temperatures have developed at the surface in the east-central equatorial Pacific.
It means that La Niña conditions are likely to develop this spring and are set to strengthen over the next few months and could last for up to two years. This naturally occurring phenomenon is likely to reach peak intensity in December to February and then begin to weaken next March to May.
Does this have any wider implications?
One of the greatest concerns is that La Niña is associated with an increase in Atlantic hurricanes. It can also cause drier-than-usual conditions in the southern United States, which experienced a serious drought during the last La Niña some seven years ago. However, Australia and Indonesia, which often have droughts during El Niño years, can be wetter during a La Niña phase.
Conrad Lautenbacher, NOAA's administrator, warned that the next La Niña may mean a stormier yet drier time ahead for the United States: "Although other scientific factors affect the frequency of hurricanes, there tends to be a greater-than-normal number of Atlantic hurricanes and fewer-than-normal number of eastern Pacific hurricanes during La Niña events," he said. "During the winter, usual La Niña impacts include drier and warmer-than-average conditions over the southern United States."
How often does La Niña occur?
On average, El Niño and La Niña occur every three to five years. However, the actual interval between them has varied from two to seven years. La Niñas began this century with the first in 1903, followed by events in 1906, 1909, 1916, 1924, 1928, 1938, 1950, 1954, 1964, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1988, and 1995. The last La Niña began in 1998 and ended in 2001. These events typically continued into the following spring, although they can last longer. Since 1975, La Niñas have been only half as frequent as El Niños.
What causes La Niña?
Cooler-than-normal subsurface water in the tropical Pacific builds up, as eastern-moving winds and waves help to bring cold, deep water to the surface through a complex set of events that are still under study. Sea surface temperatures can fall to at much as 4C below normal. The warm body of water associated with El Niño - which expands to cover the tropics during this phase of the Pacific cycle - begins to shrink to the west during La Niña.
What is the difference between La Niña and El Niño?
Both terms refer to large-scale changes in sea-surface temperature across the central and eastern tropical Pacific. Usually, sea-surface readings off South America's west coast range from 15C to 20C, while they exceed 26C in the "warm pool" located in the central and western Pacific. This warm pool expands to cover the tropics during El Niño but shrinks to a small enclave in the west during La Niña.
La Niña events sometimes follow on the heels of El Niño conditions, although not always. Sometimes there is a "neutral" phase that is neither one nor the other. The scientific name for the phenomenon is the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and it describes the coupled ocean-atmosphere process that includes both El Niño and La Niña.
Does global warming influence La Niña or El Niño?
Scientists are still not sure about this. They want to know whether a warmer world is likely to produce more El Niños and La Niñas or cause more intense cycles to occur. According to NOAA: "At this time we can't preclude the possibility of links but it would be too early to definitely say there is a link." What is pretty clear, however, is that global warming is likely to increase the risk of extreme weather events associated with La Niña and El Niño. In other words, global warming is likely to make matters worse.
What is the origin of the name 'La Niña'?
Fishermen off the west coast of South America recognised the periodic appearance of warm water in their fishing grounds, which they called El Niño, which means "The Little Boy" or "Christ child" in Spanish. They called it this because the warm body of water usually appeared around Christmas time.
When scientists recognised that there was an opposite event in the southern Pacific oscillation, they dubbed it La Niña, which means "The Little Girl" in Spanish. La Niña is sometimes called El Viejo (Old Man), anti-El Niño, or simply "a cold event" or "a cold episode". There has been a confusing range of uses for the terms El Niño, La Niña and ENSO by both the scientific community and the general public.
Are there any environmental benefits of La Niña?
Coral bleaching - when coral reefs eject the microbes that give them their distinctive colours - appears to be worse during an El Niño phase, when Pacific Ocean temperatures get warmer. Coral bleaching was particularly pronounced during 1997-98 because a very strong El Niño occurred that year. The increase of sea temperatures caused by that El Niño was superimposed on the sea temperature warming trend observed in some parts of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, caused by global warming. Coral seem very sensitive to rising sea temperatures, so the cooler phase created by La Niña should in theory benefit corals, albeit temporarily given that ocean temperatures globally are tending to rise.
Is it true that La Niña and El Niño can affect the spin of the Earth?
Yes, but the effect is very small. El Niño results in a decrease in the earth's rotation rate, an increase in the length of day. La Niña tends to have the opposite effect.
El Niño is associated with a weakening of the tropical Pacific trade winds, and with a strengthening of the mid-latitude westerlies both at the surface and at higher altitudes. To balance these changes in atmospheric winds, the earth's rotation rate decreases in order to conserve total angular momentum of the earth-atmosphere system. Conservation of angular momentum is a basic physical principle which operates, for example, when a ballerina brings her arms closer to her body to spin faster. The change, however, is only about 1 millisecond at the peak of a strong El Niño. There are 86,400 seconds in a day, so this change represents one part in 100 million. Such a change will have little effect on normal activities on a human scale, such as flying an aeroplane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)