|
climate change 
Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 15:04:49 PM MST
|
|
In my last 2 State of the Pole posts (Dec and Jan), I noted that the Hudson Bay, the Baffin and Newfoundland Seas and Canadian Archipelago region was witnessing something astonishing: sea ice was forming weeks to months late. I identified a leading cause for this condition: for the 2nd winter in a row, the North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation were registering historical negative values. When they're in their negative phase, both of these climatological phenomena allow arctic air to flow south and impact the U.S. and Europe because the polar jet stream weakens and meanders further south than it normally does. As colder air is allowed to move south, warmer air is allowed to move north. While the eastern U.S. and Europe have experienced a colder than normal winter along with more precipitation than normal, northeastern Canada has experienced the opposite: the warmest 30-day period in mid-winter on record. Of course, the fact that the Arctic has undergone rapid, significant changes in the past decade are also part of the reason for this occurrence. Our influence on the climate system has loaded the die. With each toss, there is a higher chance that extreme weather events will occur.
The climate change denial zombies love to point out snowstorms and cold air outbreaks in the U.S. during winter. They somehow think it means their patron saint James Inhofe was correct when he stated that global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. While they're busy pointing out that yes, indeed, it does snow in winter, they try very hard to ignore the fact that seas that should be frozen by December 1st remain unfrozen in late January. Has it been cold along the eastern U.S.? Yes, 5-11°F below average for the 30-day period between 17 December 2010 to 15 January 2011. During that same time, however, northeastern Canada witnessed surface temperatures from 16°F to greater than 38°F above average - for 30 days! Recall that in my write-up of NASA's and NOAA's global temperature analysis for 2010, both agencies identified December as being among the 25 warmest Decembers on record globally. Despite one of the strongest La Ninas on record and a slow emergence from the sun's latest cycle minimum, December was still warm compared to over 100 years of global temperature records at 0.67°F above average. One of the drawbacks of looking at the global average is the possibility of masking averages that might indicate something important occurring over smaller regions - like northeast Canada.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 894 words in story)
|
|
Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 14:17:08 PM MST
|
|
NASA's James Hansen and Makiko Sato have a new draft paper that brings potential climate tipping points into more focus and the results are incredibly important. They examine some differences between two recent geologic times, the Eemian and the Pliocene, and today. During the Eemian, sea levels were 15-20 feet higher than today. During the Pliocene, sea levels were 82 feet higher than today. If we maintain our business-as-usual (BAU) greenhouse emissions path, the authors state that multi-meter sea level rise within this century becomes "almost dead certain" because of nonlinear responses to that forcing. To be clear, that means that future temperature increases will not be equal for the same amount of future emissions. Instead, future emissions will cause a radical and unreversable jump in global temperatures, which will lead to radical jumps in sea level rise. We won't have a 1" per year increase in sea level. The difference year after year will be greater and greater as the climate system attempts to find a new stable region. I want to point out that Hansen and Sato use extremely strong language for climate scientists. Will it be strong enough to generate the political will necessary to take us off that path?
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 422 words in story)
|
|
Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 15:55:28 PM MST
|
|
The state of global polar sea ice area at the beginning of 2011 continues the trend present throughout most of 2010: well below climatological conditions (1979-2009). Sea ice in the Arctic continues to track far below average while Antarctic sea ice has tracked closer to average from above average the past couple of months. Overall, the rate at which Arctic sea ice is refreezing and Antarctic ice is melting is not out of the ordinary. The locations where freezing and melting is occurring is once again news this month. Global sea ice is rapidly decreasing, as is normal for this time of year due to Antarctic environmental conditions. The value of global sea ice area has already fallen below the average level of 16 million sq. km. The yearly absolute minimum should occur within the next month or so, at which time we'll be able to determine whether 2011's minimum is more like 2005, 2009 and 2010 (~15 million sq. km.) or whether 2011's minimum is more like 2006 and 2007 (~14.5 million sq. km.).
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1382 words in story)
|
|
Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 15:07:44 PM MST
|
( - promoted by Fong)
[Updated to include more complete context and to provide a link showing what 10ft of sea level rise looks like.]
Until just a few years ago, scientists were unsure why the global energy budget seemed to indicate that an enormous amount of energy couldn't be accounted for. Incoming and outgoing radiation is fairly straightforward to measure and a simple energy budget is easy to calculate. Accounting for all of the movement of energy within Earth's climate system imposes a great deal of complexity into the process. Still, numerous attempts were made to try to track down what was growing into a very large amount of energy: was it erroneous measurements or calculations, or did we remain woefully ignorant of significant physical processes?
Then in 2009, two major papers were published that closed the majority of the unaccounted for energy in the climate system. The excess energy was being stored as heat in the ocean, specifically the deep ocean. The volume of the Earth's oceans is estimated to be 1.332×109 km3. That is obviously a very large volume within which energy can be stored. What has happened over the course of the past century or so is warmer and warmer water has been forced down to the bottom of the world's oceans. Usually, warm water rises, but the water in question is just above the freezing point of fresh water. At those temperatures, salinity has an increased role in controlling density. Water sinks when sea ice forms because sea ice is made up of only pure water, leaving excess salt in the remaining ocean water. As the salinity increases, the density also increases. Water with higher density than what is surrounding it sinks and then is transported by ocean currents around the world.
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 1268 words in story)
|
|
Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 18:17:11 PM MST
|
|
A rather stunning piece of news was released by NASA earlier this week that received absolutely no attention by corporate stenographers. According to NASA, global average temperatures for November 2010 were higher than any other November in recorded history. Furthermore, the likelihood that 2010 will end up as the warmest calendar year on record to date increased. Recent months have seen consecutive 12-month periods rank as the hottest on record already. But people tend to think along calendar date lines, so perhaps 2010 ranking at or near the top of the recorded history list will help spur folks to action.
Let's start with November 2010 by itself. November's global average temperatures were 0.74C above normal (1951-1980), according to NASA. The warmest regions on Earth are exactly where climate models have been projecting the most warmth to occur for years: high latitudes (think Arctic & Antarctic Circles). The past three months have a +0.63C temperature anomaly. And the latest 12-month period (Dec.2009-Nov.2010) had a +0.65C temperature anomaly, the warmest on record.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 380 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 11:41:16 AM MST
|
A set of papers were temporarily made available to the general public in advance of the COP16 meeting in Cancun. They present quite a sobering view on just how close we are to locking the planet into dangerous global warming scenarios. One of the papers has this critical set of statements:
The analysis suggests that despite high-level statements to the contrary, there is now little to no chance of maintaining the global mean surface temperature at or below 2C. Moreover, the impacts associated with 2C have been revised upwards, sufficiently so that 2C now more appropriately represents the threshold between 'dangerous' and 'extremely dangerous' climate change. Ultimately, the science of climate change allied with the emission scenarios for Annex 1 [industrialized] and non-Annex 1 nations suggests a radically different framing of the mitigation and adaptation challenge from that accompanying many other analyses, particularly those directly informing policy.
The significance of that first statement cannot be overstated. For the first time, a research group has made the assessment that, despite the climate research community's decades' worth of warnings, policy makers have nearly locked the globe into a significant warming scenario.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 417 words in story)
|
|
Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 13:12:31 PM MST
|
|
Somehow, the potential collapse of our civilization as well as global ecosystems isn't a good enough argument for Republican Teabaggers, beholden to their dirty energy corporate masters, to take action in the global warming arena. For a few paltry thousand of dollars per Representative and Senator, but millions upon millions in slick advertising, dirty energy interests have delayed and obstructed meaningful national efforts to clean up our act before it's too late. All too often, Republican Teabaggers use the "economic destruction" talking point to convince the public that we just. can't. take. action.
Just how "destructive" would action actually be? Far less expensive than doing nothing, to be honest. Action won't be free. But inaction will be many times more destructive to our economy. And after spending much, much more money, societies would likely unravel and global ecosystems would likely collapse. That's how absolutely stupid Republican Teabagger efforts to delay action on global warming is: it will cost us more and we could end up with broken societies and a planet that's harder to live on. Or, we could take some action now and our societies will stay strong and our planet will remain mostly inhabitable. Beyond being able to live and do so in a civilized society, taking action would actually make economies stronger, something that should easily resonate in today's world.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 794 words in story)
|
|
Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 08:46:12 AM MST
|
|
They say in the Mountain West that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. This simple saying shows how little water there really is and how critical it is a semi-arid environment like Colorado. There are more law practices that deal with water rights here than anywhere else in the United States. However what is the normal way of life for the Rockies might become the norm for large parts of the country and the world.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has released a new study combining 22 climate models. These models are not looking at global warming, but rather the chance of increased drought world wide as temperatures climb. (Just a quick aside, you see real scientists aren't falling for the "debate" meme that climate change deniers push. They know what is going on and have moved on to what will happen)
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 756 words in story)
|
|
Tue Oct 19, 2010 at 10:38:45 AM MST
|
|
I'm somewhat disappointed that so many Kansans reject the reality of global warming, especially considering that their state could easily and permanently return to Dust Bowl conditions if no action is taken now, but was pleased to read about efforts to green their communities based on other incentives. While Kansans might not be taking action for the same reasons I am (or at least reasons in the same order of priority), the fact remains that they're taking action. This is really good news for everybody except for the dirty energy corporations and those who defend them with uber-religious zeal.
The Climate and Energy Project has helped 6 Kansas towns reduce their energy use by as much as 5% compared to nearby areas. That's a significant step forward for those towns. Why did they do it?
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 458 words in story)
|
|
Thu Oct 07, 2010 at 10:30:30 AM MST
|
(you should come just because Glen Beck doesn't want you to. - promoted by wade norris)
In advance of 350.org's day of international awareness of Climate Change on 10/10/10,
We will be Screening a documentary on Climate Change at the Skylark Lounge at 7pm on Oct.7 in advance of 10/10/10.
The movie is 'Sun Come Up'
Admission is free.
This is also part of Drinking Liberally.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 45 words in story)
|
|
Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 10:44:32 AM MST
|
|
You have likely heard or read by now that the first 8 months of global temperature in 2010 were the warmest of any such period in recorded history. Unlike earlier months this year, I've started to see more coverage of this in the corporate media. Unfortunately, the coverage I have seen has been short and lacking in critical context. Most of the coverage has actually been of anecdotal situations, like the record-shattering 2010 Russian heat wave. Stories about the above-average Atlantic hurricane season and the Pakistani floods leaving tens of millions displaced have typically not included much, if any, notation that record heat has been recorded across the globe.
NOAA recorded the 3rd warmest August on record; the 2nd warmest Jun-Aug on record; and Jan-Aug 2010 tied the same time period from 1998 as the warmest on record. The most intense El Nino in recorded history occurred in 1997-1998, which helped push global temperatures to record levels. The El Nino of 2009-2010 wasn't nearly as strong, but added to the background warming brought about by global warming to match the warmest Jan-Aug in modern history.
August 2010
NASA's global analysis reported a +0.67°C (+1.206°F) surface temperature anomaly for August 2010 (over the 1951-1980 base period). August 2010 had the 7th highest anomaly of Augusts in the NASA dataset, according to NASA's GISS dataset.
NOAA's global analysis reported a +0.6°C (+1.08°F) surface temperature anomaly for August 2010. According to the NOAA methodology, the two warmer Augusts observed were in 1998 (+1.3°F) and 2009 (+0.62°C or +1.12°F).
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 792 words in story)
|
|
Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 17:11:10 PM MST
|
|
The state of global polar sea ice at the beginning of September 2010 is once again very poor compared to climatological conditions (1979-2008). The Arctic ice extent is far, far below average for this time of year. The Antarctic sea ice extent is above average, but not nearly so much as was the case at the beginning of August. Unfortunately, global sea ice extent has fallen to ~18 million sq. km., something that has happened in only 2 previous Septembers: in 2007 and 2008. The Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route are largely free of ice, allowing the Arctic Ocean to potentially be circumnavigated.
Each month and each year that goes by provides additional proof that the Arctic has entered into a new state; a different state than has existed for 1,000 years or more. Monthly and yearly weather conditions have varied considerably over the past few years, as one would expect, but the end result has been nearly the same regardless of any specific condition: Arctic sea ice is declining year-over-year. It is declining at a rate that exceeds scientific estimates from just a few years ago. Climate change deniers keep prattling on about increasing sea ice, in direct contradiction to the physical realities before them. I think most of the areas that have sea ice this September will not have sea ice by 2020. Specific weather or geologic events might delay the year that occurs slightly, but I don't think it will take too much longer to witness an Arctic Ocean that is essentially ice-free.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1792 words in story)
|
|
Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 06:46:44 AM MST
|
( - promoted by Fong)
August has passed without any major town hall eruptions, but that doesn’t mean it is a quiet time in American politics. Midterm-election campaigns are heating up, and it’s becoming clear that these races could determine what gets accomplished in the next Congress.
This includes what we do -- or don't do -- on clean energy and climate solutions.
Comprehensive climate legislation may be off the table right now, but the tenor and outcome of these elections will still have an enormous influence on our energy future. They will decide when we succeed in generating millions of green jobs and cleaning up our energy supply.
I urge all of you who care about these issues to get active in this campaign season. Candidates need to know that clean energy and global warming matter to voters - matter so much, in fact, that some lawmakers will lose their jobs because they didn't act boldly enough.
Go to campaign events, write to your candidates, and let them know that clean energy is a top priority for you. Whatever you do, don't sit this one out. We need your voices, and here is why.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 595 words in story)
|
|
Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:24:16 AM MST
|
(excellent analysis of how the Oil and Gas industry is blocking energy reform - promoted by wade norris)
I worked on Capitol Hill for a long time, and I do not consider myself naive about the inner workings of Washington. But even I was surprised by two revelations this week exposing the amount of money the oil industry is spending to buy political influence.
The first eye-opener came from recently released lobbying numbers. The OpenSecrets blog reported that the oil and gas industry poured $174 million into the political system in 2009. That's eight times more than the green groups.
What did the oil and gas industry get for its money? A handful of Senators who blocked all attempts by the Senate to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that would have made fossil fuel industries start cleaning up their global warming pollution.
This week's second revelation made that difference abundantly clear. Jane Mayer wrote an investigative piece in the New Yorker about the brothers David and Charles Koch who run Koch Industries -- the biggest corporation you've never heard of -- and who have spent more than $100 million on anti-government causes.
Koch Industries owns oil refineries and 4,000 miles of pipeline, and was named one of the top 10 air polluters in the nation in a 2010 UMass-Amherst report. The Kochs' political donations are often aimed at promoting their libertarian views, but they also directly benefit their own profit margins. They have donated millions of dollars to nonprofit groups that fight environmental regulation and seed doubt about climate science. In fact, a Greenpeace report called them a "kingpin of climate science denial." And though green groups tend to paint ExxonMobil as the worst of the worst when it comes to lobbying against climate legislation, Koch outspent even ExxonMobil.
One of David Koch's pet projects is the group Americans for Prosperity, a group he founded and funds but positions as a grassroots movement. An ad for one of its training sessions for Tea Party activists says, "The voices of average Americans are being drowned out by lobbyists and special interests. But you can do something about it."
But when Americans for Prosperity hosts at least 80 events protesting climate legislation, is it really acting in the interest of average Americans or the interest of oil industry donors?
When it funds an attack ad against Representative Betsey Markey from Colorado because she supported climate legislation last summer that would have brought 30,000 jobs to her state, who is it benefiting?
And when the group pledges to spend an additional $45 million before the midterm elections, is that money really coming from grassroots activists, or from deep corporate pockets? These fat cats pretend to fraternize with the ordinary folks who dangle tea bags from their tri-cornered hats, but, in fact, they are just using activists to put a populist face on their industry agenda.
Manipulating other people's fears about the economy when you are a billionaire -- I would call that the depth of cynicism. But considering those billionaires are getting in the way of climate solutions, clean energy and green jobs in America; I have to instead call it dangerous.
|
|
Discuss
:: (4
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 07:21:42 AM MST
|
|
Climate change is a monumental problem. I characterize it by saying that it is our species' greatest confirmed threat. Nuclear war? Possible but unlikely in any given decade. An asteroid/comet collision with Earth resulting in an extinction level event? Possible but unlikely in any given decade. I would, however, rate the asteroid/comet threat above nuclear war. One day, the former will happen, we just don't know when; the latter can be held off and eliminated based on our own decision making. In a way, climate change combines aspects of both of these threats. Climate change (at a level that will challenge our civilizations) is both possible and likely in a given decade; it is currently happening and its magnitude will only increase each decade during the rest of this century unless and until we decide to do something about it.
It should not be surprising then that, given the sheer magnitude of catastrophic climate change, solutions addressing it are also monumental in scale. That's the root of why so many climate change activists have been calling for a "climate-Manhattan Project" or a "climate Apollo Project". My view on climate change actions has shifted somewhat from thinking a bunch of personal actions will eventually accumulate enough inertia to reduce our climate forcing to recognizing that the number of actions will require large-scale policy shifts - something that requires governments to act. That's why the U.S. Senate's recent failure to seriously address this developing crisis is so maddening. The status quo approach to policy will not work with climate change, mostly because we're dealing with physical systems that respond to forcing, not people's tender egos and greed.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 1174 words in story)
|
|
Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 12:00:02 PM MST
|
|
Just when you thought the U.S. Senate couldn't do any less for clean energy and the environment than it's (not) done so far, we now face the real possibility of what would amount to a "stop-work order" on the 40-year-old, wildly successful (e.g., studies finding benefits outweighing costs at a 40:1 ratio), Clean Air Act. That's right: believe it or not, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is moving ahead with a sequel to Sen. Lisa Murkowski's nefarious attempt, earlier this summer, to gut the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s power to protect the public health from dangerous pollutants, including harmful greenhouse gases. Just as bad, Rockefeller's proposal would keep America addicted to oil and other old, polluting energy technologies, while delaying or derailing our switch to a clean, prosperous energy economy. Essentially, what Rockefeller is proposing would tell the EPA – at least for two years, although we know that justice delayed is often justice denied! - that it has to be asleep at the switch, that it must not hold polluters accountable, that it must look the other way whole Big Oil and Big Coal trash the environment. Is that the lesson the Senate learned from the Gulf of Mexico disaster? Really? Fortunately, not everyone is so clueless as the U.S. Senate appears to be right now. For instance, in yesterday's Politico, two energy investors – one Democrat, one Republican – explained what's at stake in clear, compelling language. We are not experts in vote counting or horse trading. But we do know how investors and markets will respond if Congress ultimately fails to put a market-based price on carbon. The response from capital will be brutal: Money will flow to places like China, Europe and India — and U.S. jobs will go with it. The path to creating more U.S. jobs is simple: Pass legislation that eliminates uncertainty and levels the playing field, and investors will fund projects that create good jobs here at home. Rules bring certainty, certainty spurs investment, and investment creates jobs. [...] Take it from investors: Removing the uncertainty, and taking a more thoughtful approach to energy policy by putting a market price on carbon, can bring home new investments and jobs — and ensure that America leads the clean energy economy. Instead, it now looks like the Senate not only won't be moving us forwards, but instead will be trying to move us significantly – and disastrously - backwards. What's truly stunning about this possibility is that, right now, the science of climate change is clearer and more disturbing than ever. Heat waves are getting worse, the ice caps are shrinking faster than ever, and scientists are telling us that the world is setting new temperature records almost every month, every year, and every decade. In addition, the results of our insatiable thirst for fossil fuels were demonstrated starkly and tragically, both in a West Virginia coal mine as well as in the Gulf of Mexico, on TV screens all across America in recent months. As if all this isn't bad enough, we also could run out of water. The American people know this situation can't go on. In fact, recent polls show large majorities supporting an energy bill that would "[l]imit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy...by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like gas." In other words, this is a case where good policy – limiting greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing our national security, safeguarding public health, jumpstarting a clean energy revolution – and good politics – strong poll results for doing just that - appear to align. Yet, the U.S. Senate appears ready to ignore both good policy and good politics, and actually move to make matters worse by gutting the EPA and letting polluters like BP off the hook. Don’t let them do it. Call your Senators right now and tell them "hell no" to the "Let Polluters Pollute with Impunity Act." Also, while you’re at it, call the White House and tell President Obama that, if such a measure reaches his desk, he will veto it – no ifs, ands, or buts. Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet. |
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 06:42:05 AM MST
|
|
My Mom is where I learned about public service. For 17 years she was a County Commissioner in the second largest county in Michigan by population. During that time she had opportunities to run for higher office, but stayed where she was because she though it was the highest level of public office where one could see the affect of the work one was doing.
It wasn't always an easy row to hoe. Being that it was Michigan there was always a problem with finding enough money in the budgets to fill all the priorities. There were times when she did what she thought was right, even though people complained. When she set up two health clinic where teens could get condoms without shame or hassle (in the '80's) there was a lot of out cry. Still Mom knew that with the 17% teen pregnancy rate in her district something had to be done.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 1368 words in story)
|
|
Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 16:54:55 PM MST
|
|
If you follow this policy topic, by no doubt you've already heard or read somewhere that elected Democrats have decided not to even try to put together a climate and energy bill in 2010. I don't know when they think they'll take it up. I don't think they know when they'll take it up. What I do know right now is outside of Nancy Pelosi, a number of Democratic "leaders" have done anything but lead and should be voted out of office (or positions of responsibility) as soon as possible. Sen. Reid. Sen. Schumer and Sen. Durbin are on that list. President Obama very well could be.
|
|
There's More...
:: (12
Comments, 1247 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Squarestate.net is owned by Open Communications Colorado, LLC. and is not responsible for the opinions expressed outside of our own.
|
|
