Not surly at all! Realistic, which I appreciate. The main reason this carbon capture stuff interests me is because all the top climate reports presume that, in a few decades, we’re going to have the technology to do something that seems like wild-eyed fantasy by today’s standards. And just maybe letting some academics…
Ya, it’s still a long, long ways off from direct air carbon capture tech. Elizabeth Kolbert had a great piece on that I recommend everyone read: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world
Another thing Mika and I chatted about (that didn’t make it in the piece) was how if we had better tools for measuring vertical displacement right after an earthquake, we’d be much better positioned to estimate the size of the resultant tsunami. A little rise in the ground can create a big wave.
Yea. I personally didn’t experience this, but I heard rumor that some parts of the tsunami forecasting site were acting up for folks this morning. Disturbing to think what would have happened if a) this quake had struck a day earlier b) the tsunami ended up being big.
Heck yea! We miss Mika around here, too!
That’s an excellent point re government versus academic research. I left academia because for the most part the research didn’t feel actionable, and our environment is getting really screwed up right now. As gov’t funding for major climate investigations dwindles, academics should probably start thinking about broader…
Yes that’s a major uncertainty at the moment! It’s reasonable to think that as methane increases in abundance as an energy source, the abundance of methane-degrading microorganisms could increase in step—but a fascinating issue that requires a lot more study.
I appreciate your point that climate scientists should collaborate with engineers more, but disagree about this study being half baked. Is it limited in scope? Sure. That’s because it’s the first application of a new method for assessing the partitioning marine methane into old v new sources, something that’s been…
Done, thx for flagging :)
Yes that’s an important point! The paper refers to siphonophores as ‘jellies’ which is why I stuck with that terminology throughout the article (except for the research on jellyfish and climate change, specifically, toward the end, and the headline which was intended to match that lovely yellow jellyfish).
I had to isolate DNA from what was essentially highly-weathered quartz in grad school. I bet they can do it!
From the study, if you’re interested:
thanks! I’m also obsessed now.
I don’t disagree with you. I do think exotic animals raise different concerns compared with, say, dogs, by virtue of the fact that so many species on the market are wild caught and poorly understood. But as always, it’s a matter of doing your research and not being an asshole 🙃
This is a good comment.
That’s a good question. Land subsidence is measured/accounted for separately than sea level change due to thermal expansion or melting glaciers (the climate change-driven stuff). Certainly both are playing out along the Eastern seaboard, and the Gulf Coast, and the net effect is more relative SLR. The land subsidence…
So say we all.
Email me if there’s a genuine error and I’ll look into it. Thanks!
why thank you!
My understanding is that bioaccumulation effects are a research frontier—not much known about small levels of ingestion for long times. Much of the research relates to acute exposure or levels with discernible effects over a short period of time