Your Brain on Ocean: Neuroscience and Ocean Exploration Intersection at San Francisco’s BLUEMiND SUMMIT

by Greg Reitman

On Thursday, June 2, 2011 I had an opportunity to attend the BLUEMIND SUMMIT at the California Academy of Sciences for the first-ever BLUEMIND Summit to explore the intersection of brain and ocean. The goal of the conference is to shape a new era of scientific understanding of the ocean and its great emotional power.

Why do we seek respite at the ocean's shore? Why are the words "Ocean View" the most valuable in real estate? Why does the sound, smell, touch and taste of the sea set our souls at ease? These questions and much more will be on tap, as leaders in neuroscience and ocean exploration converge at the BLUEMiND Summit is the brainchild of Dr. Wallace J. Nichols, a noted sea turtle biologist, ocean advocate and Research Associate at the California Academy of Sciences.

“Humans have a deep connection to the sea that drives many of our decisions—from what seafood we eat and where we live, to how we vacation and relax,” said Dr. Nichols. “But that connection is poorly studied and tricky territory of discussion among scientists and policy makers. Understanding the connection between neuroscience and the ocean may shed new light on the best use of our brains to evolve our relationship to our ocean planet.”

With ongoing threats to the ocean intensifying, there is urgent need to focus on solutions. Nichols and his team believe that new insights may emerge as we understand our brains more deeply—and most critically, our brain’s interrelationship with the ocean planet.

Little data exists about the brain ‘on the ocean’ either in the field of cognitive neuroscience, or the oceans community. What happens to the brain when a person is in proximity to the ocean? Why do we spend hard earned money to vacation, live or dine within the view or sound-shed of the sea? What are the links between the ocean, relaxation, stress and public health? BLUEMiND will provide a platform for leaders to discuss, debate and better understand these interconnections, and the interrelated state of the “brain on ocean," and will support further exploration of the implications for ocean and human health.

“The goals of the BLUEMiND Summit are to jumpstart several new lines of mind and ocean research and add a new tool to our ocean conservation toolbox,” say Nichols.

The BLUEMiND Summit is part of The Mind and Ocean Initiative, a collaboration between leading researchers in the ocean and cognitive sciences. MindandOcean.org http://MindandOcean.org

The California Academy of Sciences is an international center for scientific education and research and is at the forefront of efforts to understand and protect the diversity of Earth’s living things. The Academy has a staff of over 50 professional educators and Ph.D.-level scientists, supported by more than 100 Research and Field Associates and over 300 Fellows. It conducts research in 11 scientific fields: anthropology, aquatic biology, botany, comparative genomics, entomology, geology, herpetology, ichthyology, invertebrate zoology, mammalogy, and ornithology. Visit research.calacademy.org http://research.calacademy.org

SeaWeb is the only international, nonprofit organization exclusively dedicated to strategically communicating about ocean issues. We transform knowledge into action by shining a spotlight on workable, science-based solutions to the most serious threats facing the ocean, such as climate change, pollution and depletion of marine life. We work collaboratively with targeted sectors to encourage market solutions, policies and behaviors that result in a healthy, thriving ocean. By informing and empowering diverse ocean voices and conservation champions, SeaWeb is creating a culture of ocean conservation. www.seaweb.org http://www.seaweb.org

Guest contributor Greg Reitman is the founder of Blue Water Entertainment, Inc., an independent production company focusing on environmentally conscience entertainment. Reitman produced the 2008 Sundance Audience Award-winning feature documentary “Fuel;” wrote, produced, and directed the feature documentary “Hollywood's Magical Island - Catalina" and is in production on a new feature documentary film, “Rooted in Peace.”

Labels: Environment, Greg Reitman, Ocean, Science

Silence is Deadly

Dr. James Hansen

The U.S. Department of State seems likely to approve a huge pipeline to carry tar sands oil (about 830,000 barrels per day) to Texas refineries unless sufficient objections are raised.

The scientific community needs to get involved in this fray now. If this project gains approval, it will become exceedingly difficult to control the tar sands monster.

Although there are multiple objections to tar sands development and the pipeline, including destruction of the environment in Canada¹ and the likelihood of spills along the pipeline's pathway, such objections, by themselves, are very unlikely to stop the project.

An overwhelming objection is that exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts. The tar sands are estimated (e.g., see IPCC AR4 WG3 report) to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO2).

Easily available reserves of conventional oil and gas are enough to take atmospheric CO2 well above 400 ppm. However, if emissions from coal are phased out over the next few decades and if unconventional fossil fuels are left in the ground, it is conceivable to stabilize climate ^2,3.

Phase out of emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over. There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles.

Governments are acting as if they are oblivious to the fact that there is a limit on how much fossil fuel carbon we can put into the air. Fossil fuel carbon injected into the atmosphere will stay in surface reservoirs for millennia. We can extract a fraction of the excess CO2 via improved agricultural and forestry practices, but we cannot get back to a safe CO2 level if all coal is used without carbon capture or if unconventional fossil fuels are exploited.

A document describing the pipeline project is available at http://www.keystonepipelinexl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open Comments, due by 6 June, can be submitted to http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/CommentFset?OpenFrameSet or by e-mail to keystonexl@cardno.com or mail to Keystone XL EIS Project, P.O. Box 96503–98500, Washington, DC 20090–6503 or fax to 206-269-0098.

I am submitting a comment that the analysis is flawed and insufficient, failing to account for important information regarding human-made climate change that is now available. I note that prior government targets for limiting human-made global warming are now known to be inadequate. Specifically, the target to limit global warming to 2°C, rather than being a safe "guardrail", is actually a recipe for global climate disasters. I will include drafts of the "Paleoclimate Information" ⁴, "Earth's Energy Imbalance" ⁵ and "The Case for Young People and
Nature"³ papers, which are so far only published in arXiv; we will submit revised versions of all of these papers for publication this summer.

____________________________________
¹ Asserted impacts include: irreversible effects on biodiversity, the natural environment, reduced water quality,
destruction of fragile pristine Boreal Forest and associated wetlands, aquatic and watershed mismanagement, habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, disruption to life cycles of endemic wildlife particularly bird and Caribou migration, fish deformities and negative impacts on the human health in downstream communities.
² Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231, doi:10.2174/1874282300802010217.
³ http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf
⁴ Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change, http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0968
⁵ Earth's energy imbalance and implications, http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140

I also will comment that the pipeline project does not serve the national interest, because it will result in large adverse impacts, on the public and wildlife, by contributing substantially to climate change. These impacts must be evaluated before the project is considered further.

It is my impression and understanding that a large number of objections could have an effect and help achieve a more careful evaluation, possibly averting a huge mistake. Brief pointed comments may be just as well as longer statements.

Link to original note: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110603_SilenceIsDeadly.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doctor James Hansen, an adjunct professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences. His website can be found at: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

LABELS: CLIMATE, CLIMATE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENT, GISS, GLOBAL WARMING, JAMES HANSEN, NASA, POLICY, SCIENCE, Tar Sands