As greenhouse gas induced warming of the climate continues, the water cycle will be changing across the globe.  This is the conclusion of a recent study led by William Lau of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.  He and his team used 14 different climate models to to simulate 140-year spans that ingested varying levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.  The basic findings are that for every 1 degree F temperature rise across the world, heavy rain events will increase by 3.9%.  Meanwhile moderate rain events will decrease by 1.4%.  Also prolonged droughts will increase by 2.6% for the same 1 degree temperature rise caused by increased carbon dioxide.  Light rain events are projected to climb by 1%.

The heavy rain events are forecast to increase the most in tropical zones especially in the Pacific Basin and Asian monsoon regions.  On the other hand the more prolonged droughts should especially impact the southwest U.S., northern Africa, northwest Australia, coastal Central America, and Brazil.

The decrease in moderate rain events is troubling since that is the type of rain that is most beneficial to crops and other plant life.

You can read more about this study from the following link.  http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/wetter-wet.html

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Drought, Science

An interesting projection of arctic vegetation changes was published recently. As you can imagine, if the arctic continues to warm, more trees will grow. The study expects up to 50% more trees in arctic regions by 2050. This would most likely lead to significant changes for the arctic climate and other areas of the world. One would tend to think that if more trees grow, then more sunlight will be absorbed (as compared to snow-covered tundra) and that this would lead to a positive feedback, leading to more warming. However, nature and the climate are complex and rarely follow a human script.

Could there be some negative consequences from more tree growth in the arctic over the next 4 decades? Yes. Could this lead to continued warming? Yes. Should we try hard to reduce our impact on the envrionment? Yes. However, we know that more warmth and “bad consequences” not a certainty because there was more vegetation, more warmth, and much less ice as little as 1600 years ago. Researchers studying the retreating ice in the Canadian arctic have found plant material under the ice which dates to as little as 1600 years ago. If wildlife, plant life, and the biosphere in general was able to survive much less ice in the arctic as little as 1600 years ago, maybe it will not be the “end of the world” this time around either, as more melting is expected.

Also, the proposed feedback mechanisms might not be as strong as some suspect. One of the commonly repeated themes of the arctic thaw is that “huge” amounts of carbon dioxide are going to be released from the permafrost and accelerate warming across the globe. This theme does have some scientific backing and makes intuitive sense, but nature doesn’t operate by human intuition. A recent paper claims that fungus in the soil around tree roots are what hold the most carbon in arctic regions. So not only would more trees be a carbon sink (as they grow) the fungus in the soil around the roots might sequester more carbon. I cannot say with any certainty how much carbon we are talking about here, or if there would be a significant effect on future theorized warming, but this finding once again challenges the thought that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and positive feedback loops are fait accompli.

Of course, discussing past climate events as a comparison with the current situation is a little like comparing apples to oranges. Well maybe not that much different, more like comparing a Granny Smith apple to a Fuji apple. Humans have changed the atmosphere to a degree so that adds an extra variable to the mix. A lot of AGW theorists expect a lot more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere in coming decades – often discussing it as fait accompli. But even here, as I have mentioned in the past, perhaps there is room for less negativity.

Drilling Into Shale For Nat Gas

The U.S. in the last few years is a great example. If you had looked at carbon dioxide emmission projections from 10 years ago, you would find most experts, in fact almost all experts, predicting a steep rise. What happened? Just the opposite. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions sank dramatically after 2007 and are now as low as back in the early 1990s. Can this trend continue? Sure it can, but it will take continued effort and continued use of less carbon intensive fuels like natural gas. Natural gas development and “fracking” have had a lot of negative press lately, but it has been a great bridge fuel. I am glad a few other people are now recognizing the environmental benefits as well.

The idea here is that natural gas can begin a trend of cleaner energy, while development of solar or other alternatives continue to develop. It is a slow process but more solar power is installed every year, solar panels have gotten cheaper, and solar panels continue to get more efficient. The solar industry has come far enough that some claim it is now a net energy producing industry! Here are some of the latest develoments:

In specialized solar cells there have been a couple of news records for efficiency. Swiss researchers have generated a world record 10.7% efficiency with a single junction polycrystalline solar cell. Yale scientists created a record 11% efficiency with carbon-nanotube-film-over-silicon cells. In the lab, materials science continues to produce possible future breakthroughs. The Neils Bohr Institute has shown that nanowires can concentrate sunilght up to 15 times normal intensity. Computer simulations at the University of Vienna have shown that single layer oxides could be used to make more effcient and ultra-thin solar panels in the future. Lastly, Uconn researchers are trying to develop what are called “solar rectennas”. These tiny devices could in theory harvest up to 70% of the incedent solar energy.

Of course, not all breakthroughs in the lab make it to commercial production, or they might not be a commercial success. That is the story with a lot of thin film solar businesses. About 10 years ago, these businesses were “hot” and proposed to make less efficient but cheaper solar panels. Unfortunately, business realities have forced many of them into bankruptcy. Crystalline silicon solar panels have dropped in price so much that thin films are not very cost competitive. The low solar panel prices have also forced one the world’s biggest producers  – Suntech - to go bankrupt. It is a story of over-supply. Subsidies from the Chinese government allowed Suntech to expand production – so much so that a glut developed and prices fell to a point where they couldn’t turn a profit. Some people are a bit concerned that cost pressures will slow down innovation in the industry while companies focus on cutting costs, but finding ways to cut cost and remain profitable is a form of innovation. Where real innovation is needed is in regulations and installation costs. The majority of the cost of going solar is in regulations and installation. The actual solar panels are dirt cheap as compared to a few years back. Cheap panels should be good news for developers of big solar projects and it seems like Brightsource is taking advantage – moving forward with building another plant (a solar thermal plant) in southern California.

Even in the event that alternatives a slow to come online, and theorized warming comes to pass, there is always the possibility of sequestering carbon dioxide or even taking  itout of the air. I have heard some people say it is a nearly impossible task, but some people are working on it. Here are a couple of recent articles on the subject: Scientists explore the miriad ways of removing carbon dioxide from the air. New fuel production process could use carbon dioxide from the air.

Have a fine Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change

As the climate continues to warm, plant and animals are adjusting.  A recent study conducted by NASA and a team of international university researchers examined a 30-year record of land surface and improved satellite sets for the area from 45 degrees N latitude to the North Pole.  They found that the growing season and vegetation has basically migrated 4 to 6 degrees north in latitude.  In other words the vegetation found in a spot today would have been more common about 300 miles south of that as recently as 1982.

CREDIT: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center for Scientific Visualization Studio.

Of 10 million square miles covered by this study, about 40% has shown an increase in plant growth in the past 30 years.  This is represented by the green and blue areas on the map to the left.  Only 3 to 5% of the area has shown plant growth decrease.  This is shown by the brownish areas on the map.

Please see the full article at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/growth-shift.html

Posted under Ag Weather, AGW, Arctic climate, Climate Change

Some interesting anthropogenic global warming (AGW) news has made some headlines recently. A lot has to do with pinning the blame (or not) on human activities. In recent years, the media, “climate activists”, and researchers have been much better at couching research and statements in more scientific terms – using probabilities to describe forecasts, weather events, and outcomes, as they relate to AGW. Instead of pinning EVERY “bad thing” on AGW (literally, remember the “big list” I used to keep, and this list), it is usually suggested that AGW is playing a part and it could get worse in the future.

One thing that many were attuned to recently is whether there would be a declaration that Superstorm Sandy was the direct result of AGW. For the first couple of months after the storm, most weather and climate experts gave the scenario a solid “maybe”. Just recently, a new paper suggests a strong link between from AGW to arctic ice loss to jet stream blocking patterns to Superstorm Sandy. Plausible? Yes. Could the same type of weather pattern and large storm arise without the lack of Arctic sea ice? Yes. In fact, meteorologist, insurance actuaries, and city planners have long know about the potential of strong wind and flood event and how it would affect the New York/New Jersey area. It happened. We weren’t prepared. I discussed this last fall in “Superstorm Risks“. Even here in Wausau, some year an F5 tornado could strike. It will demolish parts of the city. Are we prepared? No. We have an ailment called “short term thinking” and a blind spot for acknowledging low-chance high-impact events. If we really wanted to prepare, we would bury our power lines, make sure all new houses could withstand F5 tornadic winds, and have an emergency fund built up for the county and the city. We don’t. It is up to you to prepare, as an individual.

Further reading: A picture gallery of dramatic storm aftermath pictures along coastlines, including New Jersey after Superstorm Sandy.

As far as the “blocking patterns” referenced earlier, a new study suggests that these blocking patterns that could lead to extended periods of stagnant weather (could be a heat wave, a drought, cold spells, etc…) are driven by AGW. It is an interesting theory on how lesser temperature differences between the equator and the poles means more stagnant air masses, but it was based on only 32 years of data, which is an extremely short time frame when discussing the climate and trying to project into the future (similar to the flu study which only looked at a 12 year period).

In a rather stark turn of events in AGW theory, cosmic rays are now being studied in order to determine their influence on climate change. One study finds that cosmic rays do affect cloud droplet formation but the effect is probably too small to have an effect on the climate. Another study theorizes that cosmic rays might have an effect upon the “electric heartbeat” (related to lightning) of the planet, which in turn could affect the formation of layered clouds. Why is this a “stark turn of events”? Because it was not that long ago when the first scientists to propose the cosmic ray-cloud droplet connection were figuratively ’laughed out of the room’. The scientists (from the Ukraine) had to face withering criticism and conduct experiments on their own before anyone would take them seriously. It is nice to see a more scientific treatment of the subject in the intervening years, even if it is a small effect. With the some of the lowest solar activity in recent decades on tap for the next few years, we might find out if the tiny effects of cosmic rays do regulate the climate in some manner (such as is theorized to have happened during the Maunder Minimum). Sometimes, tiny processes can be amplified in a complex non-linear system such as the atmosphere. On a side note, I am a little sad about the decrease in solar activity. While it might provide some insight into the earth’s climate it will mean less opportunities to view the northern lights.

There few other AGW stories recently that could go on the big list of things that have or will happened because of AGW:

• The monarch butterfly migration could be disrupted. The idea here is that the butterfly is extremely vulnerable to small changes in temperature. I am not so sure. It seems like a rather tenuous theory considering we have had decade-long periods of cooler and alternatively warmer weather here in North America over the last couple centuries, and the butterflies seemed to have made it through.
• Viviparous lizards could go extinct. Again, this seems a bit tenuous (anyway, how it was described in the article). Viviparous lizards have a reproduction method that allows them to survive in colder climates than other lizards. The idea is that if the world warms, these lizards will suffer. I would tend to think they would only suffer if they CANNOT reproduce in warm weather, a key point which was not clearly explained in the article.
• Extreme rainfall events  have increased and will continue to increase if the earth continues to warm. This consequence has better theory and data behind it. Warmer air holds more moisture and thus more available to produce rain. However, rain formation is a multi-variable process and there could be a few trends (like less temperature contrast around the globe) that leads to less rain.
• Volcanoes are taking the blame for some of the NON-increase in global temperatures over the last 12 years – perhaps 25% of the reason for the lack of warming. This seems plausible. There have been a few small volcanic eruptions, but no big ones. I would tend to think emissions from jet airplanes would have a larger effect blocking some of the sun’s energy than some of the small volcanoes.
• Many climatologists have explained the possible changes that could occur with AGW as a shift in climate zones. Wisconsin’s climate will be more like Illinois in the future. Ontario’s climate might be more like Wisconsin was in the past. A new paper has tracked some of the changes, and so far some of the shifting of climate zones has occurred. Will it continue in the future. Yes, if this is a longer term trend and we add a couple of degrees on average. I know most people in Wisconsin (strange to say) would welcome such a change, especially after we just had another snowfall.

Finally, I have to revisit one of my pet peeves in the AGW conversation, and that is the use of the terms “tipping point”, “point of no return”, and “irreversible”. These rather dramatic terms are used to describe how once the earth warms up to a certain point there is no going back, the biosphere and the atmosphere will be forever altered, never to return to the former state. It is often suggested that we are already past the “point of no return”. It is certainly possible for the climate system and the biosphere to achieve different stable states. The problem is that these things can and do flip back and forth, and have done so throughout human history. Just recently there have been a couple of reports using these terms again. The melting of the Siberian permafrost is proposed to be a devastating “tipping point” in the climate system. Ice loss in the Canadian arctic (not Greenland) is going to be “irreversible”. The ice loss might continue in the short term and not reverse itself for decades, if AGW predictions are true, but it is hardly “irreversible”. Just 100,000 years ago Greenland was warmer than it is now. Also, as I pointed out just a few years ago, much of the Canadian arctic was warmer than it is now, as little as 1600 years ago! Plants grew in places where there are ice domes now. The Canadian arctic seemed to make it through that past massive warming ok.

The point here is not to diminish potential threats in the future, but to reign in hyperbole. Mass hysteria due to over-hyped threats probably does more harm than good. In that regard, I am encouraged to see at least one ecologist also complaining about the “irreversible” and “tipping point” terminology that is bandied about so often nowadays.

Have a good Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Arctic climate, Climate Change, Ecology, Weather NEws

I almost pulled my hair out the other day. I know, there isn’t much left to pull out, but what little is left was close to removal. In a world full of many things you could pull-your-hair-out over, what could possibly trip my emotional trigger? A National Climate Summit of course.

• It is not that people do not have good intentions
• It is not that some reasonable plans could not be developed
• It is not that there are no environmental issues address

It is that climate summits are a waste of time, money, and most importantly – ENERGY. As I highlighted in a couple previous blog posts, international climate treaties and meetings have a very poor track record of success. The Kyoto Accord did not reduce carbon emissions. The only thing that has worked to reduce carbon emissions on a large scale in the last 2 decades is newer power plants (in eastern Europe) and fracking (in the U.S.) Even some climate meeting attendees are getting frustrated with the bureaucracy of it all.

So why have a National Climate Summit? Why have people travel from long distance to sit around at a fancy hotel and listen to speeches? I know what the “stated” reason is, but given the track record of climate meetings, isn’t it time to try something different – something that could produce direct tangible results. Instead of spending all of that money and wasting all of that energy, the climate summit could be held online. The carbon footprint of a Skype call or Google Hangout is much smaller than a flight across the country. The virtual attendees could still pay all of the normal money they would have spent on a flight, the hotel, conference registration, food, drinks, pamphlets, etc… but the money could be used to buy solar panels instead of being wasted. Maybe it would be the first carbon negative national conference in the world (after factoring in the new solar power). Just think how much more alternative energy could already be installed if climate conference attendees were not running around the world destroying the environment with their enormous carbon footprint over the last couple of decades. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars! Just think how many solar panels that money could buy – how many poor countries feeling the effects of climate change could power up with clean energy.

I don’t expect the idea to take off, but it would go a long way to achieve one of the stated objectives of the proposed National Climate Summit – which is to reduce carbon emissions. Isn’t it ironic that climate meetings increase carbon emissions so much, one of the first agreements (Kyoto) was not in effect in the U.S., yet the U.S has led the world recently in reducing carbon emissions. How did  we do it? With natural gas (while exporting our coal). How do we get most of the natural gas? Through the recently disparaged practice of fracking. Fracking is not a 100% benign practice but the side effects so far do not warrant the recent hail of Hollywood and environmental criticism, in my view. Just think if more countries around the world switched to natural gas and lowered their carbon emissions as dramatically as in the U.S.! It seems like the nearly perfect solution to bridge society and the economy into a cleaner energy future. We could reduce pollution and carbon emissions and not have to sacrifice our freedoms or standard of living. The good news is that some countries, like Germany (which is dropping its nuclear program), are investigating fracking for the development of natural gas. The bad news is that extremely wealthy hollywood celebrities are generally aligning against fracking.

Have a fine Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change

You might have seen some of the scenes of recent pollution in China. The air quality was so bad in Bejing a couple of weeks ago that they could not even “chart” it. The pollution was so bad that it was literally “off the charts”. They need a chart with higher numbers. What’s worse is that the smog blew across the sea of China into Japan. The pollution was still very thick and poisonous. While Japan is busy building the world’s largest offshore wind farm in order to help keep the air clean, China is exporting some nasty pollution. . You might recall that a couple years ago I highlighted the fact that at least 15% of the particulate pollution along the U.S. west coast originates in China.

It is no secret as well that China is now the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide – by a large margin. U.S. carbon emissions are at a couple decade low and continue to decline. I don’t want this to be a screed against the Chinese people who are making a living the best they can. Bravo to the many who are also actively  working to clean up the environment, live efficiently, or find solutions to the pollution. However, I have to wonder why environmentalists are not protesting China. For years, citizens of the U.S. have had to endure withering criticism about their standard of living, their reliance on fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide emissions. Where is the pressure on China?

Very recently the very outspoken and political climate researcher James Hansen was arrested for protesting the Keystone pipeline plans here in the U.S. Did he even consider protesting at the site (China) of the world’s worst pollution and carbon emissions? Maybe he stayed in the U.S. as a matter of convenience.

There is a new group called 50 over 50 which recruits baby-boomers to engage in climate-related protests. I wonder if they have planned any protests in China? If not, why not?

The UN is still pressuring the U.S. government to do more about climate change. I have a hard time finding any kind-of strongly worded statements or “pressure” being publicly applied to the Chinese government.

Lawsuits are a burgeoning topic in the AGW story. Lawyers/plaintiffs are suing businesses like Exxon and there are even rumblings of countries suing other countries. However, I have yet to read about any lawsuits be leveraged against the Chinese government or Chinese companies. Does anyone have any idea why? Leave a comment if you have some insight.

Greenpeace is still protesting around the world. They recently tried to block some oil drilling development in the Arctic and sat on top of the parliment building in England. I am unaware of any plans Greenpeace has to disrupt the government of the world’s biggest carbon and pollution emitting nation. What could be the reason? Someone who is reading this blog must know.

Maybe China is just tackling it on their own, like many other nations, after seeing how the Kyoto accord was a waste of time on money. Rapidly increasing pollution and carbon emissions would argue otherwise, but it is a possibility.

If you are worried about climate change and pollution, you might not be able to do much about the problems half way around the world, but there is no reason to despair. Yes, there could be some climate fluctuations and associated problems, but we (as humans) always seem to figure a way to adapt or clean things up (especially here in the U.S.) While many climatologists and activists are fatalistic, often saying that “extreme global warming is unavoidable” or that we are “already past the tipping point”, I beg to differ. Years ago people laughed at the idea that carbon dioxide (to the extent that it directly affects the climate) could be taken out of the atmosphere. It is a tough problem, no doubt, but it is not impervious to science and engineering. Not only is there new and improving technologies for burning coal with hardly any carbon emissions, but new catalysts are being developed that will more efficiently take carbon dioxide out of the air. Even in the theoretically worst case scenario where heat builds to dangerous levels, there are cheap methods that could block out sunlight and cool things down again. I don’t like the thought of blocking out sunlight because of potential negative side effects, but it is an option.

Have a pleasant Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Environment

A couple of really bad “science” stories have hit the media recently. One involves liability and the other dishes out mostly propaganda.

Perhaps you already heard about this one involving the liability of scientists. Seismologists in Italy were found guily of manslaughter for inaccurately predicting when an eartquake would strike. They were found guilty even though there was credible evidence that these scientists were pressured by superiors to produce a specific forecast and thousands of scientists around the world wrote letters of support on their behalf. First of all, earthquake forecasting is just that – it is forecasting – much like weather forecasting. Scientists look at the data, calculate what might happen, and issue a forecast that represents or indicates some level of confidence. This is a terrible legal precedent and going forward I would not want to be involved in any forecasting of anything in Italy.

Lawsuits of this nature have been tried a couple of times in regards to weather forecasting – a couple of times here in the U.S. and in some foreign countries. In those cases, the lawsuits were thrown out, thankfully, because it was understood that there is no guarantee that comes with the forecast. It reminds me of the snarky comment I sometimes hear that meteorologists are the only people who “can be wrong 50% of the time” (some people say “most of the time”) and still have a job. First of all, broadcast meteorologists do get fired if they do a poor job. It is just an old wives tale that meteorologists can be “wrong most of the time” and still keep their job. Secondly, everyone is wrong some of the time. Whether in our daily lives or any job one might be doing, we have to deal with uncertainty. We all make little “forecasts” everyday in order to plan for the future, whether it be figuring the best route to work through heavy traffic or deciding the direction a business might take. We are all wrong some of the time and every errant forecast has some sort-of negative side effect, yet we are not fired for every little misstep. If we were all right all the time, we would all be billionaires or would be ruling the world. The IPCC is not held criminally accountable for poor climate forecasts. Military planners are sent to the Brigg for every error on the battlefield. These Italian seismologists should not be guilty of manslaughter.

Drilling For Oil

The other ”media release” was centered around the oil and gas industry. The Union of Concerned Scientists (although maybe this time around they should be called political scientists), produced a puff piece about how 66% of the money you pay at the pump “goes into the pockets of the oil companies”. They rely upon the economic ignorance and natural envy of people in order to try to make some environmental point. You are supposed to read their press release study and be hopping mad at the oil companies. I think they deliberately did not talk about the difference between profits and revenue in order to confuse people and make them angry. In the oil business, Exxon might be the most valuable company in the world right now (essentially, because they produce the most valuable product in the world…right now), but they are not the most profitable. Their profit margin was only a little over 7% in 2012. Most of Exxon’s profits come from refining and making specialized petroleum products. It is typical that the big oil companies only make 2 to 4 cents PROFIT per gallon of gas. It costs a lot of money to get your gas from the ground to the pump. If it was easy and cheap, we would all just drill for our own oil. So 66% of what you pay at the pump goes into the “pockets of the oil companies” but Exxon only makes a profit of 1% or less on gas and a bit over 7% overall (last year)

Compare Exxon to Apple. Apple had a HUGE profit margin between 25 and 30% during 2012. Apple’s products are over-priced yet people willingly pay. Apple uses sophisticated methods to avoid paying U.S. taxes, yet they are not considered “evil” like the oil companies. Apple could cut the price of their (very high quality) products by 25% and still make a profit. Wouldn’t that be nice. Complaining about paying money for gas is like complaining about paying money for your phone, or for your car, or a refrigerator. All of the companies that make the products we use to live, charge money for their products and they need to make a profit. This basic economic fact seems to have escaped the Union of Concerned Scientists.

If you don’t want to pay the high price of gas, either go drill your own oil (and refine it), or don’t buy it. After hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf coast in 2005, the price of gas shot up to $4 per gallon (as commodities generally should during times of shortage). Many people I know started to complain loudly. I didn’t. I bought a bike. I have been riding my bike to work for 6 or 7 (warm) months out of the year for 7 years and been saving money the whole time. Don’t live close to work? Move closer. As I have pointed out before, there are tens of millions of empty homes in the U.S. right now just waiting for a buyer. I am suspect that most people could find one near their work. By moving, you can save money and “stick it to the oil companies” at the same time! Complaining about the fact that oil companies charge money for their product is probably counter productive. Besides that, in order implement cleaner alternatives at scale, we might need the expertise of some of the world’s largest energy companies. Maybe the Union of Concerned Scientists should focus more on developing such partnerships or work harder at educating people on ways to save more (which they only touched upon in their recent press release).

 Before anyone chimes in with a comment, yes, I am aware that different companies have been involved in illegal activities in the past, and I definitely agree that they should be prosecuted for those crimes.  The economic issues presented here are mostly distinct from the legal issues.

While I am on the subject of bad science, how about a couple studies that are less bad, but still leave something to be desired.

Coal Power Plant

The first one is a wind power study out of Australia. It is really good news. Using wind power in Australia is now cheaper than building new coal or natural gas fired power plants (and another take on the study). So what happened in the last few years? Were new more efficient wind turbines invented? Not really. Did coal become a lot more expensive? Yes. Is Australia running out of coal? No. The price of coal has gone up because of a new carbon tax. That is part of the reason why wind power is calculated to now be cheaper than coal power. The other reasons are also not related so much to the science of energy production but on political considerations. According to the article, many banks who might help fund new coal power plants in Australia would include a risk premium that would jack up the price. The risk premium would have to be built in to the up front costs because the carbon tax could go up in future years and coal power plants might get sued by various, people, environmental organizations, or even entire nations in future years. It is also important to note that current coal and gas plants do produce electricity more cheaply than wind turbines. This study only calculates prices for future construction. I can’t help but wonder if there are some other flaws in this study such as not including new transmission line costs, battery back-up costs, or de-comissioning costs associated with wind turbine power. If wind power was cheaper that coal or gas on a stand alone basis (without political manipulation), it wouldn’t need to be promoted. Companies would be putting them up everywhere in order to save money. (Aside: I am neutral on wind power, it is a nice option for clean energy, but turbines do come with a handful of downsides).

Flu Virus

Lastly, a study that smells of confirmation bias. Remember back when I kept the big list of bad things that are happening or were going to happen because of AGW. I finally had to stop because the list got too big and included everything from more obesity and more starvation on up to the destruction of the planet. Let us hearken back to those days. What about the flu? A recent study “proves” that severe flu outbreaks are linked with AGW (anthropogenic global warming). The study comes to the conclusion that flu outbreaks will be worse after a warm winter. People don’t get ill during a warm winter – it is theorized – and then they are more vulnerable to infection during the next winter. I am sure you are wondering, “what about a warm winter followed by another warm winter?” That is what is expected if AGW comes to pass as predicted by the IPCC. Less cold winters should mean less flu overall, not more severe flu outbreaks – as theorized by the study. Cold and flu viruses spread more effectively when here is cold dry air around. If the world warms up and continues to turn more humid, one would think just the opposite (of what this study proclaims) would happen. Another deficiency with this study is that it only used data since the winter of 1997-98. That is a rather short chunk of time on which to base a study of influenza. It is a unique time in earth’s climate history (very warm) which is not representative of the climate history through which the flu has affected humans. The study could draw more robust conclusions if they could find a way to include data from prior years. As of now, I am not worried that flu outbreaks are going to get worse because of AGW.

Have a pleasant Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Natural Disasters, Nature, Science

And now a little time for a segment known as “maybe-it-is-not-as-bad-as-originally-thought”. I do these from time-to-time because some new studies can promote a lot of sensationalized reports in the mainstream media. It is good to look back and see if all the hype was true.

Coral reefs have been under the spotlight for some time now because warmer and more acidic oceans pose a threat to their normal life cycle. There is much evidence that coral reefs are under stress and receding in parts of the worlds oceans. There have been many headlines proclaiming an end to coral reefs as we know them and that this will cause a collapse of the oceanic food web (and a lot of other environmental horrors). It turns out there is also some positive news in regards to coral reefs. As with any form of life, coral reefs do posses some adaptability. A new study has shown that some coral reefs can survive hotter temps. Also, tiny creatures known as Foraminifera, which have calcareous shells seem to be on the increase and helping to stabilize coral reefs. Don’t get me wrong, I would prefer that we did not continue to impact and pollute the oceans as we do, and I try to live very efficiently, but it is nice to see that all is not lost when it comes to coral reefs in 2013 – thanks to the adaptability of life.

A Healthy Coral Reef

Here is another aspect of ecology that is not as bad as previously reported – something that I have mentioned before – the extinction rate of species is not as bad as thought - so far. There is still a good chance of losing a lot of species if the theoretical AGW temperature rises come to pass, but so far it is not as bad as thought.

So will the drastic AGW warming come to pass? A lot depends on whether or not we can continue deploying alternative energy at an increasing pace, but even if we don’t, theoretical future warming might not be as extreme as previously calculated. A recent study by Norwegian climatologists, one that takes into account the recent stabilization in global temperatures(since 1998 or so), projects that future warming will not be as much as the IPCC has previously forecast. There might still be enough warming to cause problems, just not as extreme as previous studies and models indicated.

If we keep living more efficiently, keep inventing new technology, and keep deploying more clean energy sources, we won’t have to worry as much about potential future warming. It doesn’t mean that the earth will NOT get a lot colder or a lot warmer anyway, but we can remove ourselves from the equation a bit more and focus on adapting to any natural changes that come along.

Have a good Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Ecology

At the intersection of science, technology, and weather that is the heart of this blog, you have to check back fairly often in order to keep your finger on the pulse of change. Ideas and themes that emerge upon the general media scene have often been discussed here days, months, or years in advance. Just last week I was reviewing my recent trip to Orlando and how the city stacks up against others in environmental impact. I mentioned the fact that even if cities in the south, like Orlando, would adopt more environmentally friendly transportation, there is still the problem of air conditioning. Air conditioners run nearly the entire year in most of Florida. They generate a lot of waste heat. This adds to the urban heat island effect. It is somewhat of a positive feedback. The more houses built, the more pavement laid, the more cars driven, the more heat is generated/absorbed and the greater the need for air conditioning, which generates even more waste heat. This waste heat and the urban heat island effect have often been ignored as negligible players in the anthropogenic global warming debate, but not anymore. A recent study has shown that the urban heat island effect can change the weather patterns hundreds of miles away.

What has happened through the years is that large urban areas have developed in significant concentrations in areas such as the Northeast U.S. and much of Europe. This creates a persistent “warm spot” in those regions, warm enough that the jet stream and other wind currents become permanently altered downwind of these areas. If one would run weather and climate models without the cities, the jet stream pattern would look different and weather effects would be different. As I have mentioned in the blog before, we certainly do have an effect on the weather, and as cities grow (if no mitigation of the heat island effect is attempted) our activities will continue to have a bigger impact. I am ok with having an impact, as long as it is well managed. Humans have come to control most aspects of nature on this planet in order to ensure a safer and happier existence. The weather and climate need not be any different.

So what are some of the things cities could do to lessen the heat Island effect? I (and many others) have mentioned painting roofs white in order to reflect more sunlight away from roof-tops. This is an easy, cheap, and simple solution for cities in the southern U.S. There is hardly a reason that any roofs should remain a dark color. In southern cities, having a dark roof is like punching yourself in the face – environmentally speaking.

Another thing that cities could do is reduce soot. This is a problem outside of cities but it is concentrated more in Urban centers – especially outside of the U.S. The soot (particulates) in the atmosphere comes from coal power plants, diesel engines, and burning other hydrocarbon matter (wood, dung, etc.) The problem is worse in China because they burn more coal and many of their plants are old and emit a lot more soot than newer plants in other areas of the world. To get an idea of how bad it is, take a look at the recent pollution in Bejing! Another country that produces a lot of soot is India. There is a constant brown haze over the subcontinent nowadays. This soot/particulate matter is bad for human health of course, but it also enhances AGW – more than most people think. When the soot falls in arctic regions or on glaciers, it causes the snow/ice to melt to a greater degree. Recent studies indicate a significant part of recent climate warming could be due to soot. Cutting the soot/pollution by using different fuels or newer power plants designs would have a big impact on theoretical future climate warming. It is easier than cutting out fossil fuels altogether – which will take a linger time. This is another area where the U.S. is starting to lead the world. By using more natural gas, we produce less of this soot-type pollution. So not only are our carbon emissions falling dramatically, we are mitigating potential future warming by not sending as much soot into the air – all because we use more natural gas. There seems to be a recent popular culture wave trying to stop the practice of “fracking” – a method used to get natural gas out of the earth(which causes small earthquakes in some places). We should stop and consider the benefits of natural gas as well. It is a nice “bridge” fuel that allows us to maintain our standard of living while polluting less – maybe helping our cities to not be so hot in the future. It buys us time while we develop better energy sources.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Heat, Pollution

There is a lot of talk recently about how “extreme” the weather is now, and how it will get so much more “extreme” in the future (even more specualtion here). There are certainly some robust theories as to why this will happen – why the frequency of severe weather events might increase (like all time heat records) - and we should of course be sure to keep our eyes open and do what we can to survive extreme weather events (like burying electrical lines, also see Superstorm Risks). However, we should remember that some unbelievably ”extreme” weather has happened in the past.

There has been much talk about how the desert southwest of the U.S. is going to suffer from more heat and drought in the future. The odds are fairly good that this will happen, not only if the global climate continues to warm, but also for the plain fact that there are millions and millions more people living in, and moving to, the southwest, creating greater stress on the water supply and adding more to the urban heat island effect. However, a “mega-drought” in the southwest should not come as too much of a surprise to blog readers here because I have detailed the climate history of the southwest a couple of times in the past. As new research also shows, multi-year and multi-DECADE droughts were common a few hundred years ago. So there is a fairly good chance we could see some “extreme” stress on rivers such as the Colorado, but it will probably not as extreme as what happened during past mega-droughts. The 20th century might turn out to be an anonymously wet period – and the “extreme” drought might be just “getting back to normal”.

Citicorp Center had to be reinforced in 1978

Even as extreme as Superstorm Sandy appeared, it was known that such a storm was possible decades before, and that infrastructure would be in trouble. La Guardia airport had flooded before and Sandy-type storm surges had been modeled. The Citicorp building was even vulnerable at one point if a “big storm” ever created high winds in New York. Around other coastal areas of the U.S. there have been many periods where stronger hurricanes have struck the coast, well before Katrina entered our collective memory.

One would think receiving 50 inches of rain over just a few days would be pretty extreme as well, but looking at today’s date in weather history we find that it happened in southern California way back in 1969:

On this day in 1969, a spate of heavy rain begins in Southern California that results in a tragic series of landslides and floods that kills nearly 100 people. This was the worst weather-related disaster in California in the 20th century.

Although January typically features relatively high precipitation in Southern California, the first month of 1969 saw an extraordinary amount of rain throughout the region. Mt. Baldy, east of Los Angeles, received more than 50 inches in the nine-day period beginning January 18. By January 26, the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) had declared it a federal disaster area.

The worst part of the remarkable rainfall was that it caused a series of landslides in the hills of Southern California. In Glendora, 1 million cubic meters of rock and mud slid down a hillside, destroying 200 homes and killing dozens of people. Although there was only one fatality, the plight of Mandeville Canyon, north of Sunset Boulevard in L.A.’s Brentwood section, during the disaster was heavily publicized due to the wealth and fame of its residents….read the full story here.

I can’t imagine all of the press and “hyperventilating” that would occur if 50 inches of rain fell in the mountains around Los Angeles in the present day, but it is certainly possible again. The oceans are a bit warmer and that means more moisture will typically be available for Pacific storm slamming into California. By the way, on the topic of landslides, a recent report found that it is a more dangerous “weather event” than most people realize.

We might have different types of extreme weather or more frequent severe weather in the future, but a lot of it has occurred before. Our short memories need a refresher once in a while.

Have a nice Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Drought, Flooding, Heat, Severe Weather