Today is Father's Day, and I very much want to celebrate it with daddy, but he's happily skipping around somewhere in Scotland so I suppose I should not burst his happy bubble. But I will call him later on his newly-acquired UK number so it will still count anyway.
So basically, three months from now I will turn 20 and celebrate my two decades of life. Except I won't be too happy about it.
To me, 20 = one more year before becoming a full-fledged adult = more responsibility = awkward me. I don't look the part, anyway. I still look 17, and no I'm not being delusional. I still haven't achieve my dream height too. WTF.
I'm too young to die but I want the earth to open up and swallow me whole. Too bad I'm not in an earthquake-prone zone. It would have been an exciting way to die if it's not a tragedy to others.
OK I'm letting Geography revision get to me. Can't think straight. Feels like giving everyone in sight a lecture on Global Warming and carbon footprint and Earth Hour. And no the latter does not come out in my Geography exam on Monday.
Not really. It's...chilly, more like. And I'm loving my room. I'll film a video tour of my room later and post it up sometime. Why? Because. My room is really cool. Great view. ^ ^
My group tutor is not in today because she is stuck in Brunei at the moment. Judging by the fresh cloud of volcanic ash cloud that is spewed out last night, she won't be coming back any time soon. Health and safety is so damn overrated here. Not that I'm complaining, of course.
It's some kind of an internal joke, her emphasizing the extremely luxurious Empire Hotel and Country Club. The whole staff was laughing =/
So. Judging by this fresh info the other half of Godolphin Bruneians won't be back by this week as well. They are probably dancing a 'volcanic ash cloud dance' right now. Just kidding.
For the rest of us, it's back to school. I was regretting getting back yesterday, and my arms did hurt when I got up this morning, but hey, it probably isn't really that bad. I'm doing mass revision and if only the lower sixth girls will be considerate and turn down their loud Jason Mraz songs (last term Lady Gaga, now this?!) so I won't be tempted to whip out my beloved Salted Fish and blast them to kingdom come with Death Metal.
Salted Fish? Oh, that's what I call my small yet powerful Logitech speakers.
In the wake of the incredible Eyjafjallajokull volcano that is the source of all these volcanic ash, I am revising hard for Geography. What? I am not? I tell you, I can even spell the incredible volcano's name backwards, I'm that good. Ha, beat that!
Well. Back to my revision now. As for why I no longer post YUI updates here, don't be lazy and read this post, OK. Bye people!
In brief, the article said: (pardon my note-taking)
• Timing is key in hurricane forecasts. • Forecasters often issue predictions before the factors are in place. • The media treats these predictions as credible and official.
• it is impossible to (im)precisely predict this season’s hurricane activity in early April.
• A significantly above average season is predicted for 2010. • The season begins June 1 and runs through November. • There will be 15 named tropical storms: 8 hurricanes, (4 major); 69% chance one of the big ones will hit US coastline.
• The Climate Prediction Center does not issue a seasonal outlook until May 20. • Variables influencing the development of hurricanes do not show until April and early May. • Mostly due to the "spring barrier" -- a time of unstable transition when important meteorological factors are largely unknown and evidently unknowable.
• The seasonal outlook should not be used as a guide for preparation plans along the vulnerable coastal areas.
Then I went back and added these to my notes. No idea if it is really relevant or not.
I like studying weather. It's interesting, and it has always been a part of our lives, whether we like it or not.
Global warming, particularly, is in the media all the time. The wikipedia page on global warming is always updated with new information. My geography textbook [Raw, Michael (2009) "Global warming and climate change" OCR A2 Geography p.108-120] has over ten pages on this topic alone. As the awareness of this increased (via campaigns and events like Earth Hour), people become more conscious of their actions. And, ironically, more hypocritical.
...
This post is not meant as a lecture so I'll stop packing facts.
...but it's too warm in the room now...I want a ceiling fan.
For the second reaction, that's because I'm blogging about Earth Hour 2010 in BRUNEI! Exciting, isn't it, Brunei is finally officially take part in Earth Hour!
For those who had no idea what I am babbling about check out this post and this post.
I, of course will be taking part in this humble activity! And I flame the person that wrote this post, because clearly a small thing can make a difference!
Anyway. Back to the topic. For those with the third reaction, I just felt like citing my sources first. Why? Because this time my sources are from Bruneian blogs! Great stuff! I have no doubt DENcorp will write something on this topic soon.
THE Earth Hour Global representatives in Brunei will be inviting the private sector, associations, individuals and other agencies in Brunei to take part in conserving the power consumption by switching off the unessential lights and other electrical appliances for only one hour.
The volunteer blackout will commence from 8.30pm till 9.30pm on March 27. Some Brunei households and companies such as The Empire Hotel & Country Club and the Sheraton Hotel participated in this initiative last year.
Earth Hour Global is committed to having Brunei Darussalam as an official participant of Earth Hour Campaign in 2010, and place Brunei in the Earth Hour International Map.
Statistics from the Electrical Services Department show that the Ministry of Education’s average usage of electricity is 6,581,472 KWh a month, which costs $658,147.23.
I'm plain bad at convincing people so I'll shut my trap now. All the more reasons to check out the hundred of links in this post!
After writing a flaming entry on my blog last year about my dearest countrymen's lack of concern about climate change, I decide there is no excuse for them this time because I will make sure they know about Earth Hour early, and really go about switching off the lights.
Here's everything you need to know about Earth Hour, so you can throw your ignorance excuse out the window RIGHT NOW. I insist, and I shall presist.
What is Earth Hour? Earth Hour is a global call to action to every individual, every business and every community throughout the world. It is a call to stand up, to take responsibility, to get involved and lead the way towards a sustainable future. People across the world from all walks of life will turn off their lights and join together in celebration and contemplation of the one thing we all have in common – our planet.
Who organised this? Earth Hour is organized by WWF. With almost 5 million supporters and a global network in over 100 countries, it’s one of the world's largest and most respected independent conservation organizations. WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the Earth's natural environment and build a future where people live in harmony with nature.
Why should I listen to you and switch off my lights for an hour? Like I am that jobless! Earth Hour isn't about how jobless you are. It is about how much you care about the planet you are living on. If you don't take care of it, one day it's bound to take care of you very well, and it's not going to be a pretty sight when it does.
Earth Hour is something you should definitely consider joining if you are:
buried in debts and loans, and is worrying about the exponentially growing digits on your electricity bill.
someone who cares about the environment and your future generations of children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
extremely rich and is looking for a chance to be snobby.
extremely middle class but have an inflated pride.
Brief history of Earth Hour:
2007, Sydney, Australia: 2.2 million homes and businesses turned their lights off for one hour to make their stand against climate change.
2008: More than 50 million people across 35 countries participated. Global landmarks such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, The CN Tower in Toronto, The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and Rome’s Colosseum; all stood in darkness.
March 2009: Over 4000 cities in 88 countries officially switched off to pledge their support for the planet.
This year's Earth Hour is taking place on Saturday 27 March at 8.30PM. Totally won over and love the idea of saving the world? Sign up here.
This guy piss me off so much, I'm sending him the death vibe.
How dare he insult His Majesty of all people. I think if I insult his mother he'll probably lash out without thinking. Well, Mr I-Sure-Am-An-ASS, His Majesty the Sultan just happen to be like a mother to us Bruneians. And get your Geography facts right, dammit.
People who thinks polar bears live alongside penguins also fall into my category of ASS. Just because both poles of the Earth is covered in ice doesn't mean they live in the same habitat. These ASS obviously are no environmentalists or have no sense of logic. If polar bears live alongside penguins, non-existing-god forbid, penguins won't even survive until today. If you are wondering why I am so passionate about penguins, they are my cousins. If my cousins doesn't survive, I will not exist.
Climate change is causing a growing listing of problems that we may or may not be able to solve. For example: suffocating seas.
SOS: Is Climate Change Suffocating Our Seas? by Lily Whiteman
Scientists work to explain why massive "dead zones" have been invading the Pacific Northwest's near-shore waters since 2002
Yet another ecological scourge may earn a place on the ever-lengthening list of problems potentially caused by climate change: the formation of some so-called "dead zones"—huge expanses of ocean that lose virtually all of their marine life at depth during the summer.
Possible connections between climate change and the relatively recent formation of dead zones in the Pacific Northwest's coastal waters are currently being studied by a research team that is funded by the National Science Foundation and co-led by Jack Barth of Oregon State University (OSU) and Francis Chan of OSU. (Jane Lubchenco, who is currently on leave from OSU while serving as the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also previously co-led the team.)
WORLDWIDE DEAD ZONES
The Earth currently has more than 400 oceanic dead zones, with the count doubling every decade. A single dead zone may cover tens of thousands of square miles.
Dead zones form where microscopic plants, known as phytoplankton, are fertilized by excess nutrients, such as fertilizers and sewage, that are generated by human activities and dumped into the ocean by rivers, or more rarely, where they are fertilized by naturally occurring nutrients. The result: blooms of organic matter that ultimately decompose through processes that rob the ocean of life-sustaining oxygen. Animals that fail to flee dead zones either suffocate or suffer severe stress.
LOSING OXYGEN NATURALLY
One of the Earth's relatively few naturally formed dead zones has long been seasonally perched in the deep waters of the continental shelf far from the coast of the Pacific Northwest. This low-oxygen, or "hypoxic," zone has apparently historically remained stationary and is believed to be caused by large-scale processes that are unrelated to human activities or local winds.
But in the summer, northerly summer winds work together with the Earth's rotation to push oxygenated surface water offshore; this coastal water is replaced by low-oxygen but nutrient-rich waters from the depths of the continental shelf in a process known as upwelling. (See illustration.) Once this nutrient-rich water reaches the ocean's sunlit layers, it fertilizes blooms of phytoplankton.
Resulting phytoplankton blooms feed the food chain and thereby help make the Pacific Northwest one of the nation's most productive fisheries. But the decomposition of unconsumed, sunken phytoplankton promotes the formation of deep pools of low-oxygen water.
Periods of upwelling-favorable northerly winds may be interrupted by relatively short periods of southerly winds during the summer and by longer periods during the fall. These southerly winds work together with the Earth's rotation to drive oxygenated surface waters back towards the shore and to drive low-oxygen bottom waters away from the shore in a process known as downwelling. Periods of strong downwelling have traditionally occurred frequently enough to flush the low-oxygen pools from the continental shelf, and thereby prevent them from expanding all the way to the shore.
LEAVING NORMAL
But underwater surveys conducted by the research team of waters off the Pacific Northwest have identified the following new phenomenon:
Pools of low-oxygen water have expanded from the continental shelf to near-shore waters off Oregon and Washington every summer since 2002; the close proximity of these dead zones to the shore had never been reported before that year.
Coastal dead zones have been more hypoxic than the low-oxygen pools located on the continental shelf, with some coastal areas periodically completely stripped of their oxygen.
Areas of hypoxia that have seasonally dotted the Pacific Northwest coast, "have been connected to one another by a ribbon of low-oxygen water that runs along the coastal sea floor," says Barth.
So far, the most hypoxic year for the Pacific Northwest was 2006, when the research team discovered a dead zone off Newport, Oregon that sprawled over almost 1,200 square miles, and pressed so close to the shore that "a baseball hit from Highway 101 during the summer could land in it," says Barth. Covering up to 80 percent of the water column and lasting for an unusually long time (four months), "this dead zone transformed a teeming habitat into a fish-free zone that was carpeted with dead crabs, worms, severely stressed anemones and sea stars, and what looked like potentially noxious bacterial mats," says Barth.
THE SUMMER OF 2009
During the summer of 2009, dead zones characterized by severe hypoxia formed near the seashore on the mid-to-inner shelf in Oregon's coastal waters; they were about average in size and duration. Barth says, "we also saw the now-classic ribbon of low dissolved oxygen water near the seafloor extending along the coast. "However, no zero-oxygen areas like those that formed in 2006 were observed.
ANSWERS MAY BE BLOWING IN THE WIND
Why have low-oxygen waters been regularly expanding into coastal waters? The research team's findings indicate that this phenomenon is potentially related to:
Reductions in the oxygen content of low-oxygen water that upwells from the continental shelf.
Prolonged and intensified upwelling along the continental shelf that has, in turn, been caused by periodic increases in the strength of northerly, upwelling-favorable winds and decreases in the frequency of southerly, downwelling-favorable winds.
During periods of prolonged upwelling, each successive wave of upwelling fertilizes more phytoplankton blooms. As these blooms decay, the continental shelf's low-oxygen waters expand, lose more oxygen and move closer to shore.
The more prolonged and intense the downwelling-favorable winds and resulting upwelling are, the more severe the hypoxia becomes. Hence, the highly hypoxic year of 2006 was dominated by particularly strong upwelling-favorable northerly winds, particularly infrequent downwelling-favorable southerly winds and particularly large accumulations of phytoplankton. By contrast, the summer of 2009 was marked by periods of southerly downwelling-favorable winds that helped dissipate low oxygen conditions. "Therefore, the hypoxia of 2009 was neither as extreme nor as long-lasting as that of 2006.
UNDERLYING CAUSES
What is the underlying cause of the decreases in the oxygen content of subsurface offshore waters and changes in coastal winds? One theory points to large-scale cyclic changes in oceanic circulation and atmospheric conditions that have hit the Pacific Northwest every 10 to 20 years. But Barth says evidence that these phenomena are unrelated to one another includes the lack of agreement in the timing of the development of coastal dead zones and the timing of these cyclic changes, which are evidenced in available records covering the last 50 years.
Rather, Barth favors an alternative theory; he suspects that climate change is driving down the oxygen content of subsurface offshore waters and altering coastal winds. This theory is supported by agreement between the predicted effects of climate change and the very types of changes in oceanic and atmospheric conditions and decreases in the oxygen content of deep water that are currently observed in the Pacific Northwest. (Climate change may reduce the oxygen content of deep water by warming surface waters, and thereby insulating deeper waters from contact with the atmosphere, where oxygen originates.)
Nevertheless, the relationship between climate change and coastal dead zones remains debatable. What's more, Barth says that whether and where dead zones appear in any particular year partly depends on the daily weather, which is difficult to predict.
So the research team continues to study winds, ocean circulation, and the timing and locations of coastal dead zones in order "to collect enough statistics over time to determine whether climate change is, in fact, driving the formation of coastal dead zones," Barth says.
DEAD ZONES AS SUMMER FIXTURES
arth says, "I wouldn't be surprised if coastal dead zones appear every summer from now on because oceanic and atmospheric conditions are now primed for their regular, repeated formation. He adds that "the real questions now are: How big will the dead zones be? How long will they last? And how often will oxygen levels plunge low enough to cause marine die-offs?"
There have been lots of on-going debate on Global Warming. A report from Science Centric might make the environment-conscious think twice.
Global Warming: Our best guess is likely wrong
No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.
The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online today, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.
'In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,' said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. 'There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.'
During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.
In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7°C - about 13°F - in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.
Many of the findings come from studies of core samples drilled from the deep seafloor over the past two decades. When oceanographers study these samples, they can see changes in the carbon cycle during the PETM.
'You go along a core and everything's the same, the same, the same, and then suddenly you pass this time line and the carbon chemistry is completely different,' Dickens said. 'This has been documented time and again at sites all over the world.'
Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.
That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.
Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.
The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. 'Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models - the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming - caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.'
Greening the Internet: How much CO2 does this article produce? By Lara Farrar for CNN
(CNN) -- Twenty milligrams; that's the average amount of carbon emissions generated from the time it took you to read the first two words of this article.
Now, depending on how quickly you read, around 80, perhaps even 100 milligrams of C02 have been released. And in the several minutes it will take you to get to the end of this story, the number of milligrams of greenhouse gas emitted could be several thousand, if not more.
This may not seem like a lot: "But in aggregate, if you consider all the people visiting a web site and then all the seconds that each of them spends on it, it turns out to be a large number," says Dr. Alexander Wissner-Gross, an Environmental Fellow at Harvard University who studies the environmental impact of computing.
Wissner-Gross estimates every second someone spends browsing a simple web site generates roughly 20 milligrams of C02. Whether downloading a song, sending an email or streaming a video, almost every single activity that takes place in the virtual environment has an impact on the real one.
As millions more go online each year some researchers say the need to create a green Internet ecosystem is not only imperative but also urgent.
"It is part of the whole sustainability picture," Chris Large, head of research and development at UK-based Climate Action Group, told CNN.
"Scientists are saying to us that we have 10 years to take some serious action to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change so taking some sort of initiative is absolutely vital."
A number of studies have highlighted the growing energy demands of computers. A 2007 report from research firm Gartner, for example, estimates the manufacturing, use and disposal of information and communications technology generates about two percent of the world's greenhouse gases -- similar to the level produced by the entire aviation industry.
Anti-virus software firm McAfee reports that the electricity needed just to transmit the trillions of spam emails sent annually equals the amount required to power over two million homes in the United States while producing the same level of greenhouse gas emissions as more than three million cars.
"Most people don't appreciate that the computer on your desk is contributing to global warming and that if its electricity comes from a coal power plant it produces as much C02 as a sports utility vehicle," said Bill St. Arnaud of Canarie, a Canada-based internet development organization.
"Some studies estimate the internet will be producing 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gases in a decade. That is clearly the wrong direction. That is clearly unsustainable," added St. Arnaud.
What do you include when working out IT's carbon footprint?
Calculating the carbon footprint of the entire web however is not as easy as measuring the greenhouse gas emissions of a car.
Data centers -- massive buildings housing hundreds, if not thousands, of power hungry servers storing everything from Facebook photos and YouTube videos to company web sites and personal emails -- are often labeled as the worst offenders when it comes to harming the environment.
In 2002, global data center emissions amounted to 76 million tons of carbon dioxide -- a figure that is likely to more than triple over the next decade, according to a 2008 study by the Climate Group and Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI).
The footprint of network infrastructure, which is responsible for transporting information from data centers to personal computers, mobile phones and other devices, is harder to pinpoint.
However the same study estimates fixed broadband accounts for around four million tons of carbon emissions and could account for nearly 50 million tons of emissions by 2020.
The manufacturing, transport and use of personal computers and laptops also has what some say is the most significant impact, producing roughly 200 million tons of emissions in 2002.
As millions of people buy new laptops and computers every year, this figure could triple by the end of the next decade, according to the Climate Group report. And it is also true that, like driving a car compared to taking public transportation, some online activities produce more greenhouse gases than others.
More electricity is needed to store, transmit and download a video compared to a simple email, for example. A single search using Google releases 0.2 grams of C02 into the atmosphere, according to Google.
"And what that includes is the energy that we at Google use to be able to receive your search, process it and then send it back to you," Erik Teetzel, one of Google's "green" engineers, told CNN.
"If people are counting things outside the activity that we do, then we don't have control over that so we don't factor that into the equation," said Teetzel.
"We can measure exactly the number of queries that we service and come up with a very accurate estimate and answer from measured results of our actual emissions or energy use per query that we serve."
The drive for energy efficiency
Citing competitive reasons, Teetzel declined to divulge Google's annual power bill, yet he said the internet company has been taking steps to make its main six, five megawatt server farms green as well as the other, smaller data centers it has around the world. It is doing this by using more renewable energy, recycled water and efficient software that requires less electricity to run.
"From a business perspective, it makes sense to get the most what you want to call useful work done using the least amount of resources," said Teetzel.
"Our energy efficiency efforts really did stem from us making our business more competitive."
A number of other companies are also working to take the various pieces that comprise the infrastructure of the internet in a more sustainable direction. Wissner-Gross of Harvard has a company called C02Stats that enables businesses to monitor and manage the environmental impact of their web sites and then purchase renewable energy certificates based on their sites' monthly carbon footprint.
Netherlands-based Cleanbits lobbies web sites to go green by either by purchasing carbon offsets or switching to green hosting providers, like AISO.net, a solar-powered data center based in California. And, like Google, Yahoo also incorporates renewable power and other efficiency measures in its data centers.
However as more of the world joins an age characterized by global flows of information and communication, some say the role the internet plays in making the lives of millions not only more efficient but also environmentally friendly should not be discounted.
"I don't think we've done a good deal with articulating the fact that IT is inherently an efficiency tool," said Teetzel. "That is why you and I use the internet now to find out a lot of information that would have previously been found by us getting in a car and driving somewhere."
"It is a little bit unfair to say that you have this huge carbon cost of the IT industry without articulating the fact that in many, many cases it offsets what I would call heavier, more carbon intense activities that we do in our daily lives," he added.
"Moving electrons is far more efficient than moving atoms. It is actually a paradigm change."
