Tag Archives: Uncategorized

Does rain smell like rain, and why?

Uncategorized,

Did you ever notice that you can smell rain? Usually, you smell it better after the rain, but if you are a highly trained naturalist, or Aragorn son of Arathorn, Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadain, the heir of Isildur Elendil’s son of Gondor, or something, you can smell it before it rains. During the rain you are usually inside smelling other things.

It is called Petrichor. That word comes from ancient Greek for rock (obviously) and God Blood. That makes sense because with all the gods up in the sky, a certain amount of God Blood would fall to the earth when it rains.

Anyway, I came across this video on Petrichor, possibly explaining it.

So, basically, you are smelling raindrop spit.

Archaeologists find cool stuff as glaciers melt

Uncategorized

A report in Science Nordic on artifacts melting out of ancient ice:

Mittens, shoes, weapons, walking sticks – lost in the high mountains of Norway thousands of years ago – are now emerging from melting ice.
…Among these were a horse skull and hiking staffs from the Viking Age. An arrow shaft found by the archaeologists is from the Stone Age.

An ancient route over the mountains once passed by the glacier where Lars Pilø and his colleagues conducted field work. People crossed the mountains with livestock, and went back and forth to their high summer farms – or simply travelled from one place to another. They have left a wide array of artefacts in their wake over the centuries, to the delight of 21st century archaeologists.

“We often find things associated with hunting. There are also ordinary objects such as mittens and shoes and the skeletons of horses that died on the trek across the mountains. This makes it a real thrill,” says Pilø.

More here.

Robotic Cuttlefish!?!?!

Uncategorized

Propellers are good for moving a boat through water, but they’re noisy and stress out marine animals, making them a suboptimal solution for a vessel trying to film a natural ecosystem. To solve the problem, scientists have built a four-finned robot that mimics the graceful swimming of a cuttlefish (seen above). New Scientist reports that the robot (named Sepios) is nearly silent and that its fins don’t get tangled in aquatic plants.

“>SOURCE

Cry me a river: Joe Cocker has died.

Uncategorized,

Joe Cocker is (was?) one of my favorite musical artists. Having said that I quickly add that while his work is well represented on my list of favorites, I also really don’t like a bunch of his other work. But the stuff that’s good is great.

He died today at the age of 70.

One of the best “albums” you can get if you like rock and roll is Mad Dogs and Englishmen. It’s Joe Cocker and a bunch of other great musicians of the day, live, double album. On that album you will find Feeling Alright. Great song. I remember Amanda being very disappointed when she learned that the relevant statement from the song is not “I’m feeling alright” but rather, “You’re feeling alright, I’m not feeling so good myself” (because you dumped me and found somebody else, etc. etc.). Still a good song, though. And here it is:

For many years, it may have been true that Joe Cocker was the only artist who did the Beatles every bid as good as the Beatles, though of course different.

I’m lucky that I saw him in concert several times, including just recently.

Oh, and of course, his performance at Woodstock is legendary. Let’s do that too:

SO, Joe, now that you’re gone…

Added:

What is Greenpeace going to do about Nazca?

Uncategorized, ,

ADDED NOTE: I changed the name of this post because some chose to shift the focus of the discussion from Greenpeace’s horrendous act in Peru to whether or not my reaction is appropriate, as though I had done damage to some historic site or harpooned a whale. I live in Minnesota. I am not affected by arguments that certain reactions to a crime make the crime tolerable. But I want to take the focus off me, and return it to Greenpeace. The rest of this post has also been modified to include a statement that makes very clear why what Greenpeace did was wrong, and why it is alarming and requires very a very explicit and strong response from Greenpeace.

Another excuse that has been given is that Greenpeace is big and complex and contains many parts, only one of those parts involved in the desecration of a heritage site. This is true enough, and does related to parsing what actually happened and deciding which individuals should turn themselves in to the Peruvian authority. But it is also true that Greenpeace as a brand is a powerful thing, and that brand is what is at stake here. Look at the damn picture they made. It says “Greenpeace.” It does not say “Some subset of Greenpeace, not all of Greenpeace.”

A man who loots a Native American site in an area he needed a permit to access may have his ability to get a permit to enter that area taken away for life. Greenpeace did something similar, but possibly much larger than what any one person in search of some pottery to sell could have done. So, what should happen to make this right? I have also been criticized (privately) for apparently indicating that I know nothing of the great things Greenpeace has done in the past, from a reading of the first paragraph of my original post (below). Sorry, but that is entirely beside the point and also inaccurate. “I’m sure Greenpeace has done a lot of great things” is a bone I’m throwing to Greenpeace for one purpose and one purpose only; I’m not too interested in entertaining right wing slams on a major environmental organization that has done a lot of good. Take it or leave it.

I’m sure Greenpeace has done a lot of great things, saved some whales, etc. etc., but the organization has recently carried out an abominable act that requires the institutional equivalent of a very very long jail term, or, what the hell, let’s make it a death sentence. Greenpeace needs to shut down as an organization. Right now. People’s objection to this strong statement has taken the spotlight off of this horrendous act, so I crossed it out. I still think it, but now maybe the focus can go back on Greenpeace.

Greenpeace activists entered a restricted area in Peru, where the Nazca lines are located. They drove into the area, and walked around there, and laid out banners. The banners were then photographed from the air (from a drone, as I understand it) to produce a message supporting renewable something. I’m guessing energy. The message was not clear. Nor was the link between their big yellow banners and the sacred and ancient Nazca lines.

This is an abuse of the cultural patrimony of Peru and the native people’s who have lived there.

In this fragile environment, footprints constitute irreparable damage.

One of the Nazca lines was apparently damaged directly, the area around the lines trodden.

As an advocate of renewable energy and supporter of taking action to move in that direction, and an archaeologist, I deeply resent Greenpeace using the Nazca lines as a propaganda tool, and I condemn Greenpeace for thoughtless damaging this important archaeological site.

I can see going after a whaling ship, illegally. But what exactly did the cultural and historical patrimony of Peru, what exactly did the extraordinary unique archaeological site of Nazca, ever do to a whale, or the environment, or to the environmental movement, or to Greenpeace?

All those who love and respect the past and archaeological resources, and who at the same time feel that we need to act on important issues such as climate change (and saving the whales) need to step away from Greenpeace and find a different organization or activity to support.

I call for the appropriate leadership of Greenpeace to resign, the board of directors to resign, the organization to turn all those involved (including in a supervisory capacity, and a planning capacity) over to the Peruvian authorities for prosecution, and for the organization to abrogate itself as the only way to truly express the appropriate level of shame and remorse. Greenpeace needs to cease to exist as a show of deference to a cultural symbol that will likely outlive humanity itself. Again, modified to shift focus. Greenpeace is dead to me. But what will provide redress? At the very least, Greenpeace needs to create, publicize, and implement a policy that prohibits the use of cultural heritage as a tool in its activism.

Added:

Greenpeace has been willing in the past to break the law. That is what they are famous for, and it is probably where they have been most effective. Not only have they broken the law, but they’ve broken the Law of the Sea, which is one of the oldest and most traditional cultural concepts we have in the west. They have, effectively, committed piracy.

This was done for a greater good, and turns out (as I understand it) to have been pretty effective activism, partly because every act of piracy to save a whale does get a huge amount of attention (and has other whale saving effects). It helps that the bad guys are really bad, and the good guys are innocent whales. This is not just civil disobedience, which at certain times and places people grow inured to. This is spectacular, it is dangerous enough to die doing, it is not something where they book you and a thousand others and let you go later that day.

It is impossible to not respect this, but it is also necessary to recognize what it is at the core. This is an organization deciding to systematically identify and intentionally break a certain category of national (from various countries) and international (as vague as that may be) law for a greater good.

With this act in Peru, Greenpeace has made a clear statement. It is a clear statement because this was an act that required organization, funding, decision making, meetings, an OK from various levels up and down the line, etc. at least within the unit of Greenpeace involved. They’ve made a clear statement that Greenpeace as an organization is willing to break the law in an entirely new area. They are willing to violate laws that protect heritage sites. That is a new thing as far as I know for them (though I’ve heard otherwise, see links below). And it is deeply disturbing. It can’t be just a few people involved in this and incidentally using the Greenpeace name.

And it isn’t just breaking the law. Any operation involving Nazca would involve research and knowing something about what they are up against. You can’t plan a project using Nazca and not be aware of the delicacy of the environment, of the fact that numerous people and one or more vehicles on the ground will unavoidably ruin parts of the site. Leaving a footprint at Nazca is like leaving a footprint on the moon (almost). It is nearly as permanent as the lines themselves. Everyone who knows anything about Nazca knows this. These Greenpeace activists must have known this.

So, Greenpeace has made a SECOND statement with this act. Greenpeace has clearly shown that it is willing not only to break Heritage laws in some trivial and non destructive way, but Greenpeace as an organization is willing to physically and permanently damage heritage sites. Imagine for a moment the reverse; harpooning a whale to save a pyramid.

Greenpeace has also made a THIRD statement with this act. Greenpeace has indicated that it is willing to break heritage law, AND damage a heritage site, for the purpose of making a picture. No whales were saved during the partial eternal destruction of a heritage site. No gyre of garbage was cleaned up while the regional indigenous culture was unceremoniously thrown under the bus. If there was a heritage site who’s preservation was actually doing the equivalent of killing whales (there are such conflicts though mostly involving plants) this might make sense. But this was a heritage site utterly unrelated to anything in the way of conservation or environment being exploited because it is famous to make a vague and not especially effective message.

Looking at this strictly from the point of view of a Greenpeace supporter, consider the implications. Now, there is a photograph of a major, very well known (one of the most well known non-Egyptian sites) locality with a message superimposed on it that, regardless of the intention, says “Greenpeace is willing to damage a heritage site” written across it in orange.

So, the final point is this: Greenpeace is known as an organization willing to break laws, in a big way, to make a larger point. Now, Greenpeace tell us that it is willing to include Heritage laws in that activism. Apologies, consternations, statements of conciliation are not of any interest to me at this point. The individuals and communities that support indigenous rights and heritage can’t afford to extend trust in this sort of situation.

There may be a point where Greenpeace’s response to their own atrocity is sufficient. But I’m 99% sure Greenpeace will never be able to pull off that response.

Some related links:

<li><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/10/peru-press-charges-greenpeace-nazca-lines-stunt">Greenpeace apologises to people of Peru over Nazca lines stunt</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion/greenpeaces-publicity-stunt-ruins-un-climate-convention-peru">By wrecking an iconic archeological site, Greenpeace ruined the UN climate convention for Peru</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/13/world/americas/peru-is-indignant-after-greenpeace-makes-its-mark-on-ancient-site.html?_r=3">Peru Is Indignant After Greenpeace Makes Its Mark on Ancient Site</a></li>

John Kerry in Peru on Climate Change

Climate Change, Uncategorized, , ,

It is nice to know that the 97% consensus on climate change science is assumed to be a real thing by the leaders. This is John Kerry talking about climate change, in Peru.

He notes that scientists were telling us that climate change is real and already happening in 1988, and he notes that in Rio 1992, the UN Secretary General delcared that he was persuaded that we are on the road to tragedy. He mentioned the superstorm happening now on the West coast and says, “It’s become common place now to hear of record breaking weather events.”

The psychology behind our failure to act on climate change

Climate Change, Uncategorized

Chris Mooney writing for the Washington Post has an article on “The 7 psychological reasons that are stopping us from acting on climate change”

He notes:

When a gigantic threat is staring you in the face, and you can’t act upon it, it’s safe to assume there’s some sort of mental blockage happening. So what’s the hangup? That’s what a new report from ecoAmerica and the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) at Columbia University’s Earth Institute — entitled Connecting on Climate: A Guide to Effective Climate Change Communication — seeks to help us better understand.

The report is framed around communicating about climate change effectively — but read more closely and you’ll quickly see that the reason we need help here to begin with is that humans have some pesky attributes, ones that render us pretty poor at grappling with slow-moving, long-range, collective problems like climate change. So which traits are we talking about?

Read the rest here.

Fisking a typical climate science denialist comment

Climate Change, Uncategorized

This one is worth looking at because it was published as a letter to the editor in an actual newspaper. Or, at least, on the web site.

A little background is in order. First, Dennis Slonka wrote an Op Ed in the Providence Journal telling us that “Climate Science Will Never Be Settled.” In it he made a number of incorrect statements about climate science, the IPCC, and Michael Mann. Then, Mann wrote a response that corrected the record. At some point, the Providence Journal corrected a small part of Slonka’s post, removing a blinding error, which demonstrates Slonka’s abysmal understanding of the situation (“This column has been edited to remove an error. No jury has found for Mann’s critics, and his defamation lawsuit is proceeding in court”).

Mann’s Op Ed is one of the rare places you’ll see him referring to his law suit, as, I assume, as a plaintiff he is probably advised to not talk about it much. He says:

If it wasn’t for all that extra CO2 in the atmosphere, Earth would be slightly cooling right now. Dozens of independent peer-reviewed studies have reached the same conclusion: rising temperatures and sea levels are directly related to the CO2 released into the atmosphere over the past two centuries by fossil fuel burning and other human activities.

More importantly, climate deniers aren’t asking questions in good faith. They’re persecuting researchers whose findings they don’t like.

I’ve written about my own strange encounters with climate denial in “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” in the hopes that my colleagues — and the interested public — can learn from these experiences.

Indeed, attacks on scientists are nothing new. The lead industry went after Herbert Needleman, who found lead exposure impaired childhood brain development. Big Tobacco targeted public health researchers. Even the National Football League marginalized researchers who studied how players suffered from repeated concussions.

Some industry-funded groups and “think tanks” continue to smear me and pretend that my research is the linchpin of all climate science. But other scientists, who understand and have thoroughly reviewed my work, know my detractors have no idea what they’re talking about.

I finally decided to sue two groups that accused me of fraud in particularly insulting ways; contrary to Mr. Slonka’s claim that a jury had already ruled in the matter, my case is actively moving through the court system.

Despite the difficult position I find myself in in the climate debate, there is reason for hope…. (read the whole Op Ed here)

Within what seems like minutes of Mann’s Op Ed coming out, Providence Journal published a letter from a reader, George W. Shuster, responding to Mann’s post. It is almost like they had it ready. I wonder if the Providence Journal is aware of the fact that most Major Media are, these days, starting to pull back form the “false balance” position that there are two sides to the global warming “debate.” Anyway, here is George W. Shuster’s letter (George W. Shuster: Mann ignores geological facts) Fisked by yours truly. There isn’t much in the letter to begin with so this won’t take long.

Professor Michael Mann’s Dec. 11 Commentary piece (“Global warming’s dangers stare us in the face”), is typical of so many in the so-called “consensus” in that it: conflates the fact of long-term global warming with short-term “man-made” global warming; and selectively denies the sciences of geology and paleontology.

There is no “so-called” consensus. There is a consensus. It looks roughly like this:

Screen Shot 2014-12-11 at 12.19.04 PM

Also, Michael Mann has used the paleo record in his research and is quite familiar with it.

To pick just one example, Mann expresses great alarm that the sea level has risen 8 inches since the 1880s. What he fails to mention, which someone objectively recognizing the sciences I’ve cited would take into account, is that we are still coming out of the Ice Age, which has seen sea levels rise some 400 feet in the last 20,000 years. (Our beloved Block Island was once part of the mainland, and Rhode Island’s land area was much larger).

This is in correct. I’ve actually studied sea level rise in New England, when I was doing a lot of archaeology there. Sea level rise had mostly slowed or stopped prior to the Industrial period as far as we can tell, and given the most likely scenario in the absence of global warming, it was more likely that the sea level would lower a bit over coming centuries.

In fact, the rate of increase Mann agonizes over since the 1880s is actually far less than the average rise over the longer term. The long-term rate over 20,000 years comes to almost four times the rate of rise since the 1880s.

Sea level goes up and down a great deal over the long term. During the latter half or so of the Pleistocene, sea level went up and down well over 100 meters. But the current sea stand, roughly, is close to the maximum normal level for this period. (See the graph at the top of the post showing long term sea level rise, from here.) Comparing the rate of sea level rise now to the average change over 20,000 years is roughly like comparing the growth rate of a 40 year old human to the growth rate of the same person as a toddler. Interesting, but not relevant to the present situation.

Global warming is a serious issue, but the proper response should not be dictated by science deniers such as Professor Mann, who selectively pick which sciences they find handiest to recognize, and deny any others that provide inconvenient truths.

Yes, indeed, global warming is a serious issue. But calling Michael Mann a science denier is not only absurd, but it is what I refer to as a bully tactic. Bullies paint their prey with the same labels that could legitimately be applied to themselves, and often label themselves with tags that are more appropriately applied to their victims. George has at least one other letter in the same newspaper in which he refers to a champion of science in the Senate as a science denier, so this isn’t a mere slip on his part. It is a tactic.

Michael Mann has written a lot about climate change, and given many talks and interviews. But underlying all of this is his own body of peer reviewed research which has been closely examined by others in the scientific community. I’ve read pretty much all of that research myself. I can let you in on a little secret. Michael Mann is embroiled in an intense debate with other climate scientists about an important issue that is totally unsettled. It is a true debate. They are arguing over the data, its interpretation, and what it means. The debate is about the important question of what happens to tree growth shortly following major volcanic eruptions. Mann says it is likely that some trees are so badly affected by the short term climate change caused by the volcanic eruptions that they essentially stop growing, which messes up a small part of the long term record the tree rings from these plants are normally used for to track climate change over time. Others say this doesn’t happen and the record is fine the way it is, but rather, what some think about the effects of volcanic eruptions on climate, and indirectly, on trees, is not exactly right.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a debate. A scientific debate. The outcome of that debate will not affect the overall picture of climate change, but it will have an important influence, possibly, on how we calculate the rate at which increasing greenhouse gas will warm the surface of the Earth. (Long term the same outcome will probably happen, but if volcanic effects are stronger, there may be more periods of slightly less rapid warming.) Esoteric, detailed, important, not paradigm changing, not an inconvenient truth, and to most people, mind numbingly boring if you get into the details. But it is an example of the kinds of debate that are real in climate science. The uncertainty introduced by George W. Shuster in his letter are only in his head. He has this wrong, which is fine, because (I guess, but it is obvious) he is not a scientist in this area of research.

Happy Anniversary Real Climate

Climate Change, Uncategorized, ,

Ten Years of RealClimate

In the spring of 2004, when we (individually) first started talking to people about starting a blog on climate science, almost everyone thought it was a great idea, but very few thought it was something they should get involved in. Today, scientists communicating on social media is far more commonplace. On the occasion of our 10 year anniversary today it is worth reflecting on the impact of those changes, what we’ve learned and where we go next.

Why we started and why we continue

RealClimate is one of the more important climate science blogs out there. If you don’t know about it, you should!

Read the rest of the story here.

Global warming’s dangers stare us in face: Op Ed by Michael Mann

Uncategorized, , ,

The Providence Journal has published an Op Ed by climate scientist Michael Mann. You should read the whole thing, but I found the following paragraphs to be one of the better written descriptions of the situation we are in:

Here’s what my fellow scientists and I know: Thermometers and satellites all point to the fact that the world is rapidly warming. Glaciers are shrinking, the ocean is heating and expanding, precipitation is falling in heavier doses, and we’re watching the Arctic icecap shrink away.

Why the rapid warming? Heat-trapping carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has increased about 40 percent since pre-industrial times. It comes from major industries that extract and burn coal and oil, as well as tropical deforestation.

Now, climate risks are staring us in the face….

Mann reminds us that those who support climate science denialism such as Dennis Slonk, who had previously written for the Journal, insist that denialists are merely asking legitimate questions of scientists and the science. Mann then asks, if this is so, why have deniers in Congress called for criminal investigations of the scientists, and why would someone send a climate scientist a package of mysterious white powder, which, even if the powder is inert (as it turned out to be) is probably a terrorist act.

I recommend reading this Op Ed, it is quite enlightening.

Michael Mann also has an Op Ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, HERE.

Here’s a Quiz: How Much Methane is Seeping from Old Wells?

Uncategorized

Peter Sinclair has a post on this topic.

One is – we assume that US carbon emissions are on the downswing, and to the best of my knowledge, that’s true. However, there are some emissions that we don’t count, because they are poorly understood. These include the gentle seeping of powerful greenhouse gases from thousands of abandoned wells around the country.

So, what are we doing about this? Interesting story here.

Australian scientists announce solar energy record

Uncategorized

AUSTRALIAN SCIENTISTS have set a new record in increasing the efficiency of solar panels, which they hope could eventually lead to cheaper sources of renewable energy.

..the researchers were able to convert more than 40 per cent of sunlight hitting the panels into electricity.

“This is the highest efficiency ever reported for sunlight conversion into electricity…We used commercial solar cells, but in a new way, so these efficiency improvements are readily accessible to the solar industry,”…

While traditional methods use a single solar cell, which limits the conversion of sunlight to electricity to about 33 per cent, the newer technology splits the sunlight across four different cells, each optimised for the fraction of the sunlight they receive, which boosts the efficiency level, Green said.

The four-way solar cells can be used at the centre of a field of mirrors which are arranged to concentrate the Sun’s rays. …

Read all about it HERE.

Hat tip: Astrostevo

Is the age of oil, gas, and coal over? Almost?

Uncategorized

Well, not yet, but one can hope for a rapid transition .

Check out this piece at Motherboard:

?In just 15 years, the world as we know it will have transformed forever. The ?age of oil, gas, coal and nuclear will be over. A new age of clean power and smarter cars will fundamentally, totally, and permanently disrupt the existing fossil fuel-dependent industrial infrastructure in a way that even the most starry-eyed proponents of ‘green energy’ could never have imagined.

These are not the airy-fairy hopes of a tree-hugging hippy living off the land in an eco-commune. It’s the startling verdict of ?Tony Seba, a lecturer in business entrepreneurship, disruption and clean energy at Stanford University and a serial Silicon Valley entrepreneur….

Read it here.

Typhoon Hagupit (Ruby): Update and what you can do to help

Uncategorized, , , , , , ,

The outer reaches of Typhoon Hagupit are already affecting the target region in the Philippines. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled the areas most under the gun, but the potential for serious problems covers a very large area. The storm has gone through quite a few changes over the last couple of days, but is probably strengthening somewhat right now. No matter what happens, it is going to hit the Philippines as a very serious storm.

Jeff Masters has an update here.

This is the same area that was hit with Typhoon Haiyan last year. Haiyan was a bigger storm. But, Haiyan was also one of the biggest typhoons ever observed (I think people are still arguing over whether it was the biggest, second biggest, etc.). There is potential for very high storm surges, serious winds, very heavy rains (over two feet in some places) which could cause devastating mudslides and flooding.

When this sort of storm hits people often want to know what they can do to help. I’ve learned about a recent project that you may be interested in. This is by Direct Relief. As background, let’s look at a relatively objective source of information about Direct Relief, Wikipedia:

Direct Relief (formerly known as Direct Relief International) is a private humanitarian nonprofit organization based in Santa Barbara, California, with a mission to “improve the health and lives of people affected by poverty or emergency situations by mobilizing and providing essential medical resources needed for their care.”[1] Founded in 1948 by Estonian immigrant William D. Zimdin, the organization is headed by President and CEO Thomas Tighe and a 31-member Board of Directors.[5] Direct Relief has received a 100% fundraising efficiency rating by Forbes,[6] been ranked by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as California’s largest international relief organization,[7] and topped Charity Navigator’s 2014 list of “10 of the Best Charities Everyone’s Heard Of.[8]” Direct Relief is the first nonprofit organization in the United States to be designated by The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) as a Verified-Accredited Wholesale Distributor licensed to distribute pharmaceutical medicines to all 50 U.S. States and Washington, D.C.[9]

So it is an experienced organization, gets the money you give it out into the field efficiently, and is secular. All things I’m sure you want to see in an organization you make a donation to.

But the Hagupit situation offers an additional opportunity because Direct Relief has a new project in the field there, which looks promising. I was planning on talking to someone at Direct Relief about it, to find out more, but I think he got stuck in a meeting at the UN or something, so we’ll probably talk later (and I’ll report on that to you). Meanwhile, check this out:

Direct Relief’s Emergency Response Team is monitoring Typhoon Hagupit (locally known as Ruby), as it approaches the Philippines. On its current trajectory, the typhoon is expected to make landfall in the Eastern Visayas in the next 72 hours and could affect 4.5 million people.

Direct Relief already has staff on the ground ready to respond in the event of a disaster and has reached out to local partners and health officials located in high-risk regions 5, 6, 7 and 8.

There are also three strategically pre-positioned typhoon modules ready to be rapidly utilized in the event of an emergency. These modules contain enough medicines and supplies supplies to treat 5,000 people for a month following a disaster.

Philippine authorities are currently in the process of evacuating vulnerable communities. Vice Mayor of Tacloban city, Jerry Yaokasin, stated that “we will now strictly enforce forced evacuation.” Yaokasin said that “we have no more excuses, we have gone through Yolanda, and to lose that many lives, it’s beyond our conscience already.”

Direct Relief’s staff on the ground will be maintaining contact with partners and monitoring the situation as it develops in the next 72 hours.

There are three things you will find at Direct Relief’s web site.

<li>First, there is <a href="http://www.directrelief.org/hpp/?extent=99.1924,-1.6963,144.8076,27.1137">a monitor of the storm's path</a>, an interactive googly mappy think which is very cool.</li>


<li>Second, there is more information about <a href="http://www.directrelief.org/2014/12/monitoring-typhoon-hagupit-approaches-philippines/">Direct Relief and the situation in the Philippines</a>; they have one of the better organized web sites for disaster relief non profits. </li>


<li>Third, and most importantly, <a href="https://secure2.convio.net/dri/site/Donation2?df_id=2105&2105.donation=form1&_ga=1.168290657.1168894472.1417733221">there is a way to donate money</a>. </li>

When donating, frankly, I’d suggest the “wherever it is needed most” or “disaster relief” options. They are already there, on the ground; they will be relieving people as it happens. I have a feeling they know best where to spend the money.