I have been covering and studying the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) ”situation” (science, media, politics) for over a decade now, yet I am continually amazed at the twists-n-turns of the topic and the complexity of diagnosing changes in the climate.

One thing that hasn’t changed is the failure of the political process to solve anything. As I highlighted several times in the past, the Kyoto Accord was very flawed from the start. I  (and many others)suspected it would do more harm than good. There was no shared sacrifice built into it. Some countries had to cut emissions while others were given a free ride. In the end, about the only countries that successfully reduced carbon emissions were those in eastern Europe, but that is not really something to crow about. Eastern European countries would have had reduced emissions even without Kyoto because they retired all of their old inefficient Soviet-era coal power plants. No other countries hit their emission targets, except ironically, the U.S which never ratified the Kyoto Accord. Emissions in the U.S. are now at a 20 year low! China and India, who were exempt from Kyoto, naturally are now the biggest emitters. Many people could see the flaws in Kyoto and predicted exactly what would happen, so I am surprised to see some people were surprised by the failure of the Accord. In retrospect, I suppose compromises have to be made when trying to put a world-wide regulation into place so negotiators did the best they could, but unfortunately came up with a document that did more harm than good. The current climate negotiations are more direct. It is proposed that advanced nations support a fund that would go to pay poor countries for damages related to AGW.

On the media side of things, there are still signs of over-hyping. Ever since I can remember, it is always “AGW is worse than we thought” (or warmer than most climatoloiogists think). I recall reading a similar headline eight years ago. AGW theory, if substantially correct, would certainly cause problems in the environment and some things are changing in line with some predictions, but it is 2013 the world hasn’t ended. I am unsure how much all of the apocalyptic “it is worse than we thought” headlines (for 20 years) have turned people off to the topic, but I am sure there are some. What usually happens is that people DO heed warnings, adjust their behaviors, and take corrective measures, it is just not as visible or as fast as environmentalists would like.

Even though many proponents for “climate action” highlight the worst possible scenarios, there is some evidence that AGW will not be as bad as forecast. A familiar skeptic, James Delingpole, relates some recent information on why AGW might be on the very low end of estimates - that temperature rise in the next century will not be that much different than the rise last century. It has to do with some basic assumptions of how much heat the oceans have taken up in the past and will take up in the future.

In a similar manner, some of the catastrophic drought predictions might not be as bad as originally thought due to a flaw in how drought has been monitored and calculated throughout the last few decades. Many of you might be familiar with the Palmer Drought Severity Index. I have referenced it a few times as a fairly good measure to look at past dry and wet years in Wisconsin. The problem is that the PDSI is not as good as it could be. There are better ways of measuring precipitation and evaporation and determining how much drought is occurring around the world. Using the more precise formula/calculation, it has been found that world-wide drought hasn’t increased much in the last few decades and it might not in the future either.

This also relates somewhat to the recent drop in in sea levels around the world. I know that you have heard about how the sea level will go inexorably higher, swamping coastlines and islands, but in 2010 and early 2011 the average sea level around the globe actually fell by a significant amount – only to rise once again toward the long term trend in 2012. One of the reasons for the reverasal in sea level rise was increased precipitation over land. Warmer oceans led to more moisture in the air which generally leads to more precipitation. This might counteract some of the drought predictions for coming decades.

A receding glacier in Alaska

In regards to ice around the world, you could understandably become confused by the expansion of sea ice around Antarctica and the reduction of sea ice around the arctic. It seems every other headline says there is catastrophic melting vs. it is not melting as much as thought (especially in Greenland). The headlines from last Summer that “all of Greenland has melted” might have been one of the real head scratchers. Believe it or not, this has happened before when warm winds have blown over the island. It wasn’t all of the ice that melted, it was just the surface snow/ice that had melted. Think of it like a frozen lake here in Wisconsin during the Winter. During much of the winter the lakes have a thick sheet of ice with a some snow on top. When some warmer weather hits (like last week’s January thaw) the snow on top of the ice melts and the surface becomes wet. That is what happened last Summer in Greenland. Only the top layer of snow melted, which is still significant because that does not happen over the entire island very often. As far as ice goes around the rest of the world, some glaciers are melting while others are expanding (another article here).

One of the more significant developments recently is that more climatologists are now on board with the ‘AGW has ground to a halt theme’ – citing the fact that natural forcing still plays a role and that ocean circulations have probably put the brakes on AGW at least in a small way at least for the last decade or so. In “my AGW position” blog post from a couple years ago, I mentioned that the climate changes we have seen recently are a combination of natural cycles and human influence, so I am pleased to hear of some agreement on this thought recently. Lately, I would say that there is enough evidence to say that the human influence has grown, but natural climate cycles will still throw a wrench in even the best programmed climate models in future years. Even though most climatologist would say changes in the sun’s energy output are too minor to make a difference, I still have a suspicion that the extremely low sun cycle we are in could have some cooling influence over the next few years.

None other than James Hansen has also stated that there could be a significant cooling trend over the next decade or two. Not because AGW has stopped, but because it might be affecting the planet quicker than expected. So how could faster warming cause cooling? Doesn’t seem to make much sense. He says that recent modeling shows that if the ice melts faster than expected, then that could cause some cooling to occur in the oceans which could then cause a temporary cooling trend for the planet as a whole. So the forecast that it is only going to get hotter in the U.S. (and elsewhere) might be off by a bit. I hope so, not only do I NOT like too much heat and humidity (like last Summer) but more of a cooling trend (either by a low sun cycle, ocean currents changing, or increased ice melting) would give us time to develop cleaner energy technology and more control over the weather and climate. A decade or two is A LOT of time in today’s fast changing world.

Have a nice Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Arctic climate, Climate Change, Oceans

When does persuasion go too far? When does it become manipulation? If you think long about it, the difference is subtle. Persuasion is more organic and open. Manipulation is more pre-planned and involves a larger degree of control – and imbalance between participants. People frustrated about not being able to “persuade” more of their fellow citizens about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) appear poised to move into the “manipulation” business. The effort starts by studying people who are skeptical, finding out what manipulative techniques work to change their opinion, then craft AGW messages to appeal to their weak spot. Apparently, science and facts are not enough. This isn’t exactly “1984″ or “A Brave New World” but it doesn’t feel right.

It has been found that if you craft a message to appeal to someone’s morality (right and wrong), then they will support (or reject) a cause on moral grounds (which tends to be more absolute), instead of weighing the facts, evaluating trade-offs, and understanding the science. I don’t think AGW theorists and environmental alarmists need to move more into manipulation. In fact, I think it could backfire spectacularly. I laid out some alternative ideas of “persuasion” in this past blog post. What has worked thus far is facts and increasing global communication. If AGW theory is correct the data will prove it. The data has been backing up AGW theory in recent years and more people are aware. People also communicate what they see and hear more fluidly around the world. This will continue.

From what I have seen, what drives the passion behind people who are skeptical about AGW is not so much the science, but the politics. Most plans that propose to reduce the use of fossil fuels involve restricting economic freedom through supranational enforcement. Most people want to be free and live comfortable lives, so they reject tyrannical proposals to reduce fossil fuels use. What might work better? Progress. Technology. Information. Getting more GDP per energy input would allow people to live happy, free, and comfortable while using less energy and creating less pollution. Of course this takes a lot more thought and work than just passing a law to restrict the use of fossil fuels and just throw people in jail who do not obey. Good thing there are a lot of innovative people in the world who are working against all odds to make a cleaner energy future a reality.

Have a nice Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW

The Doha climate summit has closed without much progress. Advocates, politicians, and negotiators, flew half way around the world to discuss how terrible the climate change situation is, and agree to meet again in the future. I don’t have too much faith in a world-wide political process to solve environmental problems. Time (and money) wasted in “world meetings” could be spent on concrete local action like planting trees, cleaning up streams, creating parks, and implementing energy efficiency. The only significant climate treaty that was cobbled together and signed by a good number of countries  – the Kyoto Accord – was very flawed and hardly accomplished anything (carbon emissions are higher than ever, except in the U.S.)

Political negotiations many times boil down to a handful of powerful people deciding how to divide the world’s wealth (taking from some and giving to others), and this is the main thing coming out of the Doha climate talks. There is more momentum for a ‘climate fund’ for people most affected by ‘climate changes’. I have gone through the seemingly flawed logic of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) lawsuits/funds before but more important is the effectiveness of how the money is spent. If all of that money (and the money spent of climate meetings) was instead spent building more solar power plants, then we would be much further ahead of the game, in my view.

Or the money could be spent on geo-engineering to prevent the AGW Apocalypse that is predicted by some to happen in coming decades. I don’t like the option of geo-engineering, preferring instead to invest more heavily in alternative, but it would be cost effective in terms of turning down the thermostat of the planet. Here is a list of 6 different geo-engineering schemes and their potential cost. (and another article on the same subject) Apparently, it would only cost about 5 billion per year to block out a little sun. Surprisingly, some people have already taken things into their own hands, conducting experiments such as fertilizing the ocean with iron, which is apparently against UN laws. Which is another interesting aspect of possible climate changes, causes, and remedies. If something is going to be done, apparently only the governments of the world will be allowed to conduct these “experiments”. Considering how so many other past “government experiments” (US housing bubble) have gone wrong, I am not too optimistic about geo-engineering. However, eventually, as I have stated before, someone, a group of businesses, or an association of governments is going to take more control of the weather and climate. As a species, we don’t just sit back and take everything mother nature delivers. We have always modified our environment to make it more safe and more comfortable.

Have a good Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW

A few years ago, I highlighted the seemingly conflicting predictions that the “world-was-going-to-end” because of increasing use of fossil fuels and resultant anthropogenic global warming (AGW) vs the “world-was-going-to-end” because we were running out of fossil fuels. I contacted some people from both sides, and they both essentially said they were right but the other side was kind-of right too. You can reference this interview with Dr. Hirsch for some background. At that point, nearly three years ago, Dr. Hirsch put the time frame for negative repercussions from “Peak Oil” at 2 to 5 years. It hasn’t happened yet, and I doubt it will happen in the next 2 years. It seems we have a pretty balanced confluence of new sources of oil keeping production at necessary levels while at the same time deriving a greater percent of energy needs from renewables. The price of oil is high, and similar to the prediction of many Peak Oil theorists, I think it will remain high and go higher during the short term. I think it will remain fairly high (within a few percent of its current price) even if the world economy dips further than it already has. Hirsch and others are correct that new sources of oil (and other hydrocarbons) are harder (expensive) to produce, but they are more plentiful than most thought. Natural gas supply continue to rise as well which should help to blunt and shock from traditional oil source shortages. So it would seem the AGW theorists have won the argument for the time being. I would say they were more correct than peak oil theorists, however, I still am not

This topic came into my mind once again because of the recent night image of the earth released by NASA. Check it out here. Scroll down the page and you will find a map you can zoom in on. Curiously, there seems to be a huge new city that popped up in western North Dakota. Without actually contacting NASA or the Energy Department to find out with more certainty, I am going to confidently speculate that the “huge city” is just the thousands of oil and gas rigs that have been built up in that part of the country. (as an aside, Egypt is one of the more interesting features on the nighttime map, you can easily see that nearly the entire population of the country lives along the Nile river).

So it would seem the AGW theorists have won the argument for the time being. I would say they were more correct than Peak Oil theorists, however, I still am not convinced that human society as a whole will continue to use increasingly more fossil fuels for decades into the future. From what I can see, the increasingly expensive fossil fuels are allowing more renewables to be deployed. Technological progress continues to allow us more GDP per unit energy. These trends should continue into the future. Also, even if we do use more fossil fuels 50 years from now, they will be used/burned in ways that impact the environment less. In addition, there are more and more companies devising ways to take carbon dioxide out of the air. As I have mentioned in the past, there is nothing stopping us from taking carbon dioxide out of the air except the lack of determination. Reversing the process will not be easy, but if carbon dioxide is going to destroy the environment (doubtful), sequestration will happen. Newscientist recently ran an article about a few of the companies that are already developing cabon negative liquid fuel (registration required). I doubt these things will scale (economically) very well, but at least it is evidence that it can be done and that we are not doomed and ”past the point of no return” as so many climate theorists claim.

Besides carbon negative fuels and sequestration, the outlook for renewables and electrification of the economy looks quite promising (in my opinion). I know there are significant technological and economic hurdles to overcome but the main problems I have seen are “institutional”. People have a hard time imagining a world without the very successful and useful internal combustion engine. The benefits of electric motors are numerous, which will help convince some people, but the bigger change that is coming is generational. Younger generations swim in a world of information. We are becoming experts at moving electrons and data, and moving these things around is much easier and more efficient than moving liquid fuel and massive objects. My feeling is that things (self-driving electric vehicles, immersive virtual reality, solar power, etc…) will fall into place more rapidly than people expect.

Don’t think renewables could power the grid within a decade or two? Think again. A University of Delaware study has shown that it could be done by 2030 at a comparable cost to what we pay for maintaing and powering our current power grid. The technology already exists. The key is to pair renewable sources with proper storage to eliminate the problem of intermediate power outpout from solar panels and wind turbines. Of course, if technological progress continues, maybe it (renewable power grid) could be done before 2030.

As you know, I am not a big fan of covering the earth with millions of wind turbines, but solar panels are a different story. There is plenty of “already used” space (rooftops) for solar panel deployment. SolarCity is one company aiming to secure that productive real estate. In a positive sign for the solar business, they are expected to offer an IPO this week. Now even though I a proponent of solar power, and I missed a good opportunity to invest in FirstSolar in the beginning, I am not so sure I would perosnally buy stock in SolarCity. They have not turned a profit thus far and they are somwhat dependent upon government subsidies. If you were thinking about installing solar panels, maybe give them a ring. I am unsure if SolarCity installs here in Wisconsin (if not now, then maybe after the IPO), but they do really bring down the cost of panel installation – and solar panel prices are currently the lowest in years. It might be a good opportunity to get off the grid.

Even though the market for solar power has been rough over the last couple of years (due to the ongoing recession), science continues to advance and panels should continue to improve. The tough market is not stopping Silevo from ramping up production of their more cost-conscious solar panels. Just last week, Sharp announced a new efficiency record for triple junction compound solar cells at 37.7%. Wow! Princeton researchers have used the properties of plasmonic cavities to triple the efficiency of typical organic solar cells (the process reduces reflections off the surface). In more speculative research, computer simulations show that integrating nano-sized semiconducting funnels into solar panels could allow them to more easily absorb light from more of the electro-magnectic spectrum. In a more here-and-now story, Google has thus far been able to fend off rather extreme environmental regulations in order to build the giant Ivanpah solar “farm” in southern California (cool pictures). I could go on. We might have some troubling things going on in the world and economy right now but there are good things happening as well. Progress continues.

Have a fine Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Peak Oil, Technology

In the last few years I am continually and increasingly amazed at the antagonistic themes of environmental protection and economic growth. Both can happen at the same time, just not in the traditional industrial sense. Unfortunately, it seems leaders of the developed world continue to speak out of both sides of their mouth. They claim to be concerned about the environment, but at the same time continue to push for economic “growth” in the 20th century industrial sense of the word.

I was particularly appalled at the recent Federal Reserve statement pushing people to buy more homes, complaining that they (The FED) could only do so much to re-invigorate the housing market, and that banks, non-profit organizations, and private citizens needed to do their part. Set aside the fact that demographic and income trends make it very difficult for the housing markt to “recover”, a booming housing market would be terible for the environmnt. Why would we want to build millions of new homes, when by some estimates we already have well over 10 million vacant homes in the country and possibly as many as 20 million. Building new single family homes can only be done by developing more subdivisions and increasing sprawl. If all the new houses were zero net energy houses like this demonstration house,

NIST zero net energy house

then maybe the FED’s desperate attempt to recreate a housing bubble would make a little environmntal sense, but that is not what is hapenning. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against people saving money and building a new house (living in their “dream house”), I just don’t think it is wise (economically or environmntally) for the government and Federal Reserve to push people to buy and build new houses.

But that is a dilema in a consumer dominated/defined economy. People need to buy “stuff” in order for the traditional metrics of economic “growth” or economic ”health” to be positive. How many times have you heard financial reporters talk about retail sales and Black Friday shopping? More is better, right? How many times have you heard DC politicians speak about propping up the housing market or building new manufacturing and office facilities? A lot of building space that we don’t really need considering the fact that many companies from IBM to First Solar are reducing their reliance on taditional office space. If the world is really soon approaching an environmental catastrophe, then the last thing the government should be encouraging people to do is build more, buy more, travel more, etc… As I have mentioned before, I think focusing on things like health, happiness, and efficiency would be better for individuals and better for the environment. Much better than the buy stuff, build stuff, pave-over-the-land economic model foisterd upon us by our “leaders”.

But then maybe I am an old codger, an old stick-in-the-mud, caught in the developing world of abundance. I grew up in a setting of hard work, saving, honesty, and self-reliance. Things have changed. Despite the ongoing recession in the U.S., we still have a wealth of material abundance and obesity rates continue to climb. Debt and bailouts continue to climb as saving recedes.  Many futurists expect that because of our growing technological prowess we will have even more abundance in the future – getting more GDP with less energy input. Is over-consumption (instead of creating, conserving, or producing) the wave of the future? Am I “missing the boat” being frugal, saving for the future, and living efficiently to help protect the environment?

Judging by the dire predictions from anthropogenic global warming theorists, the consumption-based economy may be headed for (or helping to create) a disaster. If the consumer economy did go off the rails, if technological progress cannot keep up with over-consumption, I would not be surprised. Many past societies have crashed very near the time it was thought everything was great and getting better. What do you think? Is it a bad thing that there is such a focus on consumption (and building more) for economic gowth? Or, will we be able to quickly solve environmental and other problems as soon as they pop-up and continue living blissfully in a world of vast material abundance?

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Environment, Technology

Does biofuel have a future? I cover the many different angles of alternative energy, pollution, and climate here in the blog and you probably remember that in the last few years I have soured on most of the biofuel industry – especially grain ethanol.

I have nothing against the actual people who work in the industry or the farmers that grow the crops. It just isn’t turning out to be a productive activity for the economy and society as a whole. From an environmental perspective, even under the most ideal set-ups, grain ethanol here in the U.S. has an EROI barely over 1. Using up 40% of the corn crop (food) and barely getting anything for it, doesn’t seem like the best way to go. Food prices are already surging this Fall. Can you imagine if another dry period strikes the U.S. next growing season? U.S. grain exports to the rest of the world are falling dramatically because we are burning so much of the food in our cars (as ethanol). Wouldn’t it better if the corn was shipped around the world for people to eat?

From an economic perspective, most new biofuel companies haven’t been able scale their processes up and make a profit. If there wasn’t a mandate and subsidies for grain ethanol – those types of producers would mostly fail as well. I have reported on quite a few biofuel companies through the years and an increasing number of them are now going bankrupt. Even oil giant BP is giving up on their large biofuel investment, saying that withhout government support, is will not be economically feasible for them. Another sign that biofuel companies are having major trouble is that many of them are now turning to natural gas instead of other feedstock material. Natural gas is so cheap that it is easier for them to make heavy liquid fuels out of nat gas than say corn, or wood chips, or other plants material. That’s fine from a technical perspective, but it makes no sense from an environmental perspective. Biofuels were supposed to be CARBON NEUTRAL! By using nat gas, they are just pumping more carbon into the air. Making biofuel from waste material is at least more rational from an economic perspective. Joule and Cool Planet Biofuels have been working on the waste-stream angle which is good. If the material is going to waste then why not turn it into fuel (as long as it can be done at a profit). One of the concerns I have is about the amount of waste material that is available. There are only so many wood chips and agricultural waste to go around. Most of these companies say they will be profitable when they are producing millions of gallons per year. If they are all trying to use waste material, then they might find ”shortages” or that the price of “waste materials” will go up. A second concern is that if the material was going to be recycled anyway (perhaps as compost or landscaping material) then why make fuel out of it? Making fuel out of it requires that the waste material be shipped to the biofuel plant, converted to liquid hydrocarbon fuel and then shipped out again. Sapphire Energy has one of the best demostrations of biofuel thus far. They use algae and carbon from the air to create oil. This is probably the most neutral out of all the carbon “neutral” biofuel schemes, but Sapphire is still producing liquid hydrocarbons supporting a liquid hydrocarbon economy. (Aside: Cool Planet Biofuel’s process is not really carbon negative because they plan on using/selling the biochar by-product. It would only potentially be carbon negative if they buried/sequestered the biochar).

Also, hanging over all of this is an efficiency question. Why convert various carbon sources into liquid fuel when we could be transitioning more over to electric. Electricity can be produced in situ (solar panels, wind, and geothermal) and delivered more efficiently. Yes, liquids currently pack a lot more energy into a particular volume (than batteries), but there are many other advantages of using electricity, and batteries get better every year. Solar panels get more efficient and cheaper every year. Besides solar, thorium nuclear power is another possible safe source of electric energy in the future. India looks like it is finally getting around to building a thorium nuclear power plant. Good for them. The world needs a demonstration of the technology and the U.S. is apparently uninterested.

Of course, the reason for all the focus on alternative fuels and carbon sources is the theory that the earth will be destroyed by anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Whether you accept the theory/sceince or not, an electrified economy still seems like the way to go in the short to medium term (say…the next couple decades). Not only is electricity more efficient, it fits better with our evolving information revolution. Our most important tools in the modern day are now electronic tools. Cell phones, computers, and the Internet are driving the bus now. The information economy is less reliant on “moving mass” and “building things”. It is becoming more valuable to move bits and ideas, and build algorithms. Besides fitting better with our information society, electricity (from solar power or developing nuclear technologies) is just more futuristic. We used to dream big about the future in America. We used to dream about traveling to the stars. The internal combustion engine is so “last century”. Wind mills/turbines are so “the century before last”. Hydrocarbons are so “last millenium”.

Have a nice Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Environment

Sigh. Or maybe, Egads! Yet another pessimistic study about the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) apocolypse and how nothing can stop it unless we all submit to vast new world-wide taxing and regulatory structures with near complete control of the world economy. We must live subsistence lives or else it is the end of the world!

It is not that the data in this most recent study is bad (although it only tabulated through 2008 which leaves some very interesting US energy usage/carbon emission data off the table), it is that the title screams pessimism. Instead of framing the topic as an interesting way to look at the economy in order to figure out how to reduce carbon emissions, it flatly states we are all screwed (AGW apocalypse) even though the economic recession has caused a dip in carbon emissions (especially in the US – a 20 year low - which I have documented before)

The reasons for the dramatic drop in US carbon emissions are multi-faceted, due in part to the ongoing recession, but also demographics, and technological progress. The recession is still here, the demographic trends continue to point toward lower population growth, and technological progress is quickening. A more comprehensive framing of the recent drop in carbon emissions (in much of the world – except the biggest polluter – China) would be more optimistic. What could be learned and promoted is a different way of looking at progress and growth. We CAN have “progress” without building huge sprawling highways,suburbs, and exurbs. We CAN have “growth” without building more parking lots and strip malls. Happiness, health, and safety are not dependent upon 20th century infrastructure and “shovel-ready” jobs designed to build more redundant stuff. Why the heck do we need more houses anyway when there are way over 10 million sitting empty right now! 

We should be looking at how we have made it through this recession thus far. How have we put food on the table when jobs have become more scarce? How are we still running the economy with lower carbon emissions? The message should be one of optimism for a cleaner environmental future, not the old and trite “carbon emissions are down in the recession….but we are all still doomed” statement.

_____________________________

A couple of space exploration updates:

* The extreme skydiver who wants to break the record for highest free-fall jump and for breaking the sound barrier is now scheduled to jump tomorrow.

The SpaceX Dragon Launch

* Hooray for SpaceX! Their Dragon capsule has launched and is headed for the ISS on an unmanned re-supply mission. For those interested in space exploration, I cannot state how important this is. The US (and many advanced countries) are broke or bankrupt. The human space exploration once-dreamed of so vividly in the 20th century is not going to happen primarily through NASA. It will happen through private space firms. This is not a knock on NASA or their engineers/astronauts. It is just financial reality. NASA will continue to do great work with un-manned exploration – I am sure. But if you ever had a dream of travelling to space yourself – ala Star Trek or other space based sci-fi, almost all of our hopes rely upon the likes of SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, Bigelow Aerospace, Google, and many others. Support private space exploration.

Have a good Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Space

I have followed the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) story and debate for some time now – almost 2 decades – and have written about it more regularly in the past five or so years. The data continues to come in favoring/confirming AGW theory more than non-AGW theories for recent changing climate conditions. One would think this trend would be enough for many of the “louder” AGW proponents to claim the theory is correct and future predictions are probably correct (in contrast to theories from people who are dismissively called “denialists”). Usually, the data wins out over time.

Unfortunately, there is still a counter-denialist trend that seems a bit useless or silly. In an attempt to “put the smack down” on people who are skeptical about AGW, a climate scientist from Columbia University recently said we shouldn’t refer to the Medieval Warm Period anymore – it should be called the “Medieval Period”. This is based on the fact that temperature reconstructions indicate that some temperatures in Svalbard (Norway) are warmer now than during the Medieval Warm Period.

Maybe it was a light-hearted attempt at a joke. Text sometimes does not convey intention very well. However, this has been a trend I have noticed through the years – intentionally minimizing the degree of natural variation of temperature (more specifically the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age) in order to bolster AGW theory. It is unnecessary in my opinion. The climate does vary naturally. The Medieval Warm Period WAS a warmer than normal climate period. The Little Ice Age was real. The River Thames did freeze over. These climate events might make some people a little more skeptical about current AGW theory, but it is not a reason to try and wipe them from the record.

On the topic of AGW and climate theories, here is something interesting (albeit almost meaningless without more time-consuming context) for the more skeptical crowd. 2012 was a very warm year here on earth (maybe one of the warmest in the historical record) and it seems it is also very warm on Mars. The Curiosity Rover has found unexpedtedly warm conditions in the spot it landed on the red planet. I mention this because one of the counter theories to AGW is that the climate is more driven by solar changes. If so, then other planets might experience some warming comparable to earth. It is a shaky theory, but I thought some people might find the warm Mars tidbit interesting.

Have a nice Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Space, Weather History

As I have noted on a couple occasions in the past (Carbon emissions down, and down again), the U.S. is no longer the biggest polluting nation in the world. Almost all metrics of air, water, and soil pollution in the U.S are better than 4 or 5 decades ago. The big surprise for many of the environmental bent is that carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. have gone down. The latest report indicates that carbon emissions are the lowest they have been since 1992!! (another article on the report can be found here).

Kudos to the U.S., anyway, I am willing to say this is a good thing. Unfortunately this good news was not trumpeted very much in national media outlets (unlike the record low arctic sea-ice). I am always talking about positive reinforcement and here is a great opportunity. Environmentalists and climatologists who are concerned about AGW should be online and in media everywhere extolling the virtues of cutting emissions and telling everyone to keep up the good work. With solar panel prices so low, the government could be pushing more people to install them and further lower our emissions. Even if you are skeptical about “global warming” (AGW), using less fossil fuels and cleaner fuels is a great thing because it reduces the U.S. dependence on foreign energy and promotes cleaner air, water, and soil.

China is the world's worst polluter

The U.S. is emitting so much less carbon dioxide that it now only accounts for 16% of the world’s emissions. China has soared past the U.S. and now emits 29% of the world’s carbon dioxide. I wonder how long it will take for perceptions to re-align. For so many years now the U.S. has been endlessly derided as the world’s worst polluter. China, and even India on many metrics, are now much worse. Will environmental organizations now start protesting in China?

So what is behind the dramatic drop in U.S. emissions? It is a combination of things. Alternative energy is playing a small part. The continuing economic slump is playing a small part. The switch to natural gas has made the biggest impact – which I pointed out a few months ago. In comparison to the negative side effects of using natural gas as a transition fuel (fracking problems, potential pollution), the reduced emissions are most definitely worth it.

Some commentators are not impressed, saying that the U.S. is just exporting manufacturing to other countries and that is why our emissions are going much lower while other countries are rising. This is not really true. Yes, manufacturing jobs in the U.S. are under pressure, but the U.S. still manufactures a lot of stuff. According to the U.S. Census bureau, U.S. manufacturing output grew 11% in 2011 up to nearly $5 trillion. So how do we still manufacture so much and yet have lower emissions? Productivity and efficiency. It is happening all around us all the time. It is progress. Progress can be scary, as I have mentioned before here and here, but we must confront it. Without progress or change, I am unsure that life would be very meaningful.

Progress (greater efficiency) happens in such small increments that it can sometimes be hard to notice. No one person can keep up with all the changes, but I try to hit the highlights from time-to-time in the blog. Even though LED lights have not seen wide adoption within the home, they are increasingly used for traffic lights, street lights, parking lot lights, and many more applications. Each light that replaces an incandescent or fluorescent light is an incremental gain in energy efficiency. Automobiles continue to become more efficient every year and the number of hybrids and electrics continue to grow. Appliances get more efficient every year. And the list goes on and on.

Aerogel protects a flower

One seemingly small improvement I noticed the other day was the creation of a flexible aerogel. If you are unfamiliar with aerogel, it is sometimes referred to as solid smoke. It is the lightest solid material known, excluding a similar  nanotube based substance invented/created just a couple of weeks ago. Read about aerogel here at wikipedia. It is a strong super-insulating substance but has not found much use because it is also very brittle. Now along comes flexible aeorgel (no word on the cost yet) and all of a sudden we could have another significant increase in efficiency. Could you imagine how much better aerogel would be at insulating houses, or appliances like refrigerators and freezers? Appliances could be much lighter as well, saving on material and shipping costs.

The little developments matter. As long as the U.S. doesn’t get into another wasteful speculative boom like the housing bubble and its attendant suburban sprawl, the future should be much cleaner.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Technology

In the past few days, the Arctic sea ice has reached it’s lowest point in the satellite ice measuring era (30 some years).    This trend of lower summer sea ice levels is nothing new.  In fact the six lowest Arctic sea ice extents have occurred basically in the last six years (2007 through 2012).  As of mid August, an area roughly the size of South Carolina was melting each day.  The highest Arctic sea ice extent during the satellite record occurred in 1980.    What’s interesting when comparing the previous low in 2007 to the new one in 2012 is the different types of weather.  It was very warm in the arctic in the summer of 2007.  It has not been especially warm there this summer.  Apparently we have lost enough of the thick, multi-year ice such that even average summer temperature and wind conditions can cause rapid melting of the remaining ice now.

Courtesy U.S. Coast Guard. Ice floes northwest of Barrow, AK on Aug. 12, 2012 as seen from the USCGC Healy.

Sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, 2012. This was 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the September 18, 2007 daily extent of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles).

National Snow and Ice Data Center scientist Walt Meier said, “By itself it’s just a number, and occasionally records are going to get set. But in the context of what’s happened in the last several years and throughout the satellite record, it’s an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing.”

According to NSIDC Director Mark Serreze, “The previous record, set in 2007, occurred because of near perfect summer weather for melting ice. Apart from one big storm in early August, weather patterns this year were unremarkable. The ice is so thin and weak now, it doesn’t matter how the winds blow.”

“The Arctic used to be dominated by multiyear ice, or ice that stayed around for several years,” Meier said. “Now it’s becoming more of a seasonal ice cover and large areas are now prone to melting out in summer.”

With two to three weeks left in the melt season, NSIDC scientists anticipate that the minimum ice extent could fall even lower.

2007 Arctic Sea Ice extent

In 2007, Arctic sea ice extent reached an all-time low in the satellite record that began in 1979. Arctic sea ice follows an annual cycle of melting through the warm summer months and refreezing in the winter. While Arctic sea ice extent varies from year to year because of changeable weather conditions, ice extent has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past thirty years. The pronounced decline in summer Arctic sea ice over the last decade is considered a strong signal of long-term climate warming.

NSIDC will release a full analysis of the melt season in early October, once monthly data are available for September.

2012 Arctic sea ice extent

For the full announcement and to download data images and maps, see NSIDC’s Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis page (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews).

See NASA’s news release Arctic Sea ice Shrinks to New Low in Satellite Era.

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