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

In a little follow-up note to the previous blog entry detailing  the complexity and confusion that sometimes follows the AGW topic, notice that many record low temps have been occurring in the desert southwest of the U.S. recently. As is usually the case, the cold snap is just due to “the weather pattern”. I have seen some people cry foul in the past, pointing to the fact that every time there is record cold on the planet, it is just due to “normal changes in the weather pattern”, whereas every hot spell with record high temps is evidence of AGW and environmental apocalypse – not just “a change in the weather pattern”. While there is certainly some evidence of bias creeping into research into reporting, the main theme is that over many years and decades, the number of record hot spells is increasing while the number of record cold spells is decreasing. If we would happen to see more cold spells and more new all time record low temps (more than record highs) over a few years time, then we might have to re-evaluate current climate theories involving greenhouse gasses. As is, we are setting new record warm months at a clip 5 times greater than record cold months.

_________________________________________________

Mars as seen by Curiosity

A now a little follow up on a space story that I have been blogging about for a few years now. Did you see that NASA has contracted with Bigelow Aerospace to provide an inflatable module for the ISS? This is great news for all of those who have had dreams to travel in space someday. NASA is the unfortunate victim of budget cuts and with the U.S. trillions in debt and adding exponentially more every year (recently), the chance that NASA will get increased funding is rather slim. Even if they did get some funding, it would most likely be spent on robotic space flight instead of human space flight (which is fine and great for science). It will be up to wealthy private individuals and companies to keep the dream alive and send humans into space. Be sure to follow the likes of  Bigelow, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, etc… for the latest efforts. If you want be part of a risky space exploration mission, you don’t have to start your own company, or be a billionaire, you could always apply to be part of MarsOne. This is an effort to jump start the colonization of Mars, and will require very adaptable problem-solving people. They also would like to have people who have a deep capacity for self-reflection, because as currently designed, this would be a one way trip in 2023. You are expected to make Mars your home with no guarantee of a return to earth.

_________________________________________________

And finally, another “other-worldly” story that is in need of an update – Lake Vostok, Antarctica (past blog information here). The Russian researchers drilling down to this ancient lake that hasn’t seen the light of day for hundreds of thousands of years claim to have retrived a “clean” ice core of frozen lake water. They will analyze it soon to see if there are any here-to-fore unknown life forms lurking two miles below the ice.

Have a swell Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Arctic climate, Records, Space

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

One of the many research stations in Antarctica

Here is some hard to understand (or reconcile) research (on the surface anyway) about the ice sheet covering Antarctica and its potential future melting. Scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research claim that more snowfall on the continent of Antarctica counter-intuitively leads to MORE ice loss at the edges. In fact they say that future ice loss will be 3 times greater because of increased snowfall upon the continent. Doesn’t sound right, does it? Especially since the ice sheet around Antarctica is growing and breaking records for it’s extent into the ocean. It would appear that right now, increased snowfall on Antarctica IS leading to more ice. And, isn’t that how the ice sheets (and glaciers) build up in the first place? With more snowfall? They certainly didn’t get that way by less snowfall and melting.

The key to unravelling this paradox is to think about the near future. If the oceans continue to warm, then the ice could melt faster than the build-up due to snow in the interior of Antarctica. Less ice floating around in the sea around Antarctica would mean the glaciers and ice sheets on the continent would have less resistance flowing into the ocean. The increased snow could exert more pressure on the flowing ice pushing it into a warmer sea, thus causing more melting. The key trend will be whether the increased snowfall (and build-up of ice sheets) will outpace the melting at the edges. Here is some additional reading about the opposite ice trends in the Arctic and Antarctic plus some additional theory as to the mechanism by which the Antarctic ice sheet has grown.

By the way, on the subject of Antarctica, Lake Vostok is a story I have been following for a few years (another good post here) - the Russians apparently DID break through to Lake Vostok earlier this year. So far there are no signs of life, but more investigations are coming. I think it would be neat if some new form of life was discovered, something that has had no contact with the earth’s surface for hundreds of thousands of years. As long as it did not turn into a situation like “The Thing” (which is a good thriller movie – not terribly gory either).

Also, on the subject of ice, have you ever wondered how many molecules of water it takes to form an ice crystal? It is not just two. Due to the shape and forces (intermolecular hydrogen bonds) within water molecules, if you put just 2 water molecules in jar and chilled it down below freezing, the molecules would not come together to form ice. Maybe 10? Surely 10 molecules of water could maneuver into a particular arrangement, stick to each other and form a real ice crystal, right? Not quite. According to this recent research, it takes approximately 275 molecules of water before a legitimate standard ice crystal will form. Now you have some weekend trivia with which to stump your friends.

Have a nice Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Arctic climate, snow

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

There are 2 main ways floating ice sheets melt, from warm air above and from warm ocean currents attacking the underside of the sheets.  Results of a recent study using NASA’s Ice, Cloud, & Land Elevation Satellite indicate the warm ocean current process has been the main culprit in recent years. 

A group of international scientists conducted the study from 2003 to 2008 using the special NASA satellite with lasar altimetry and specialized computer models to process melt and runoff data.   It showed 20 of 54 ice shelves in Antarctica showed substantial melting from below due to warm water currents eating into them.  Many of these are on the west side of Antarctica. 

This new satellite altimetry technology, combined with information from aircraft,  satellite radar, and other projects will give researchers the best view yet of how the ice and oceans of the world are changing.  Numerous climate models predict that sea level could rise anywhere from 6 to 18″ on average worldwide in the next 50 years.  Some project an even more extreme rise.

You can read the full article here.   http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/currents-ice-loss.html

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

Aside from a handful of short cold snaps and brief bouts of a few inches of snow at a time, this winter has proven to be fairly tame.  Especially when compared with last year’s winter that provided much of the United States with considerable snowfall. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has just released two images showing just how striking the difference has been in terms of snow depth.  In the image below, you’re looking at the continental United States.  Areas shaded in a taupe-peach color indicate areas that are dealing with nearly 40 less inches of snow compared to the winter of 2010-2011.  Areas in the blue color are places with nearly 40 more inches of snow. 

The top image illustrates the comparison in December, the lower in early February. 

What a difference!  We can see it has been a unique winter anecdotally, but when you look at the numbers and see how widespread the difference has been, it really is quite striking! 

To see the entire article from NOAA, follow this link: http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/image/2012/fierce-2010-2011-winter-dwarfs-this-seasons-snowfall

Image from NOAA.

Posted under Arctic climate, Environment, forecast, Nature, new media, Science, Seasonal Items, Snow Totals, Weather History, Weather NEws, Winter Weather

As you know, one of my main criticisms of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is that there is not enough thought with respect to the dynamic and self-limiting nature of fossil fuel energy usage and no consideration of technological progress. New clean energy and technology is not fait accompli but it should at least be considered.

Another smaller quibble revolves around the certainty with which many leading advocates for emissions reductions and climate treaties speak. Even though it is often said that climate science is feindishly complex, and it is known that early models were very coarse and sometimes innaccurate, you often hear how the oceans WILL rise, the temperature WILL warm, the storms WILL get worse, the environment WILL collapse, and the changes ARE IRREVERSIBLE.

While these 100% iron-clad statements continue, the science of the matter continues to throw a few curve balls and unearth previously unknown actors in the climate system. For instance, it was recently found that evaporation of water from plants has the potential to slightly cool the planet. It is well known that plants can cool a small area through evaporation because evaporating water takes energy. Our bodies even use this process (evaporation through sweating) to keep cool. What was not known as well in the past is the potential for evapotranspiration (from plants) to form low clouds which reflect the sun’s energy back into space. This would cause a slight cooling effect. If moisture and precipitation continue to increase in the near future, then the slight cooling effect could continue and should be considered in future projections.

Examples of Alkenes

Another research effort has found that molecules called biradicals can cool the atmosphere. These molecules form in the atmosphere when ozone reacts with other molecules comprised of carbon and hydrogen. What forms is a type of aerosol that reflects the sun’s radiation back into space. It is unknown how much cooling effect this natural and sometimes unnatural (where there is smog/ozone in cities) molecular process has on the atmosphere.

As far as modeling the future climate, there are still some holes that need to be plugged in order to improve the accuracy. A recent paper from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory pointed out some room for improvement in predicting arctic sea-ice loss. Arctic clouds play a big part in how much sea-ice melts every Summer and current models do not completely capture the amount of arctic cloud-cover or the amount of radiation they reflect. Knowing the atmosphere-ice-ocean feedback processes in greater detail should improve future climate forecasts.

Boreal Forest

Amazing as it might seem, it is also still not known whether forests contribute to AGW or help mediate it. On the surface you would think that trees would take more carbon out of the atmosphere, they are after all “made” out of carbon (and other elements, of course). Due to complex feedbacks of growth and decay, tropical forests might have a much different effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide that boreal (far north) forests. Also, northern forests might not be absorbing as much carbon as previously thought, especially in areas where warmer weather has also meant drier weather, such as western Canada.

None of this means that climate science is complete bunk. The climate models are based on well known chemical and physical processes. Certain molecules such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane are well known to have an effect on temperature and radiation transfer. Humans most likely have an effect on the long term climate. However, there is not 100% certainty of environmental Armageddon. Our certainty does increase every year as more data becomes available but the climate system is dynamic and heretofore unknown triggers could tip temperatures in different directions. Many climate scientists think the variation in the sun’s energy output does not have an effect on our current climate, but it is unknown whether tiny changes in solar output could be amplified within the earth’s climate system to produce unexpected results.

In addition, future technological progress will likely assist us in reducing our impact on the environment and atmosphere. There will not be “business as usual” fossil fuel usage all the way through 2100. Be sure to keep your eye open for more efficient devices, housing, and vehicles. You can save money and lessen pollution at the same time.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Arctic climate, Climate Change, Technology

Yesterday I profiled a solar power company that is furthering progress in alternative energy as solar still looks to be one of the better options for cleaner energy production in the near future. What about biofuel? Has anything changed in the new year?

There are no doubt some great advances in chemistry and biology that are making the production of liquid hydrocarbons (like ethanol or biodiesel) more efficient and viable. Joule Unlimited has created a new process that uses genetically engineered bacteria to convert carbon dioxide and sunlight into fuel. Their process is potentially much better than current cellulosic ethanol schemes if they can scale it up. Another company, Virent, based in Madison Wisconsin, is supplementing their biofuel process with natural gas in order to more easily make the liquid hydrocarbon fuels that we use in present day transportation.

Joule Unlimited Biofuel "Reactors"

Both of these companies are trail-blazers with truly impressive science and engineering feats under their belt, but the question remains, is biofuel the best way forward to reduce pollution and theoretical future climate warming. I still say no. In the case of Joule Unlimited, why use sunlight, bacteria, and CO2 to create a liquid fuel when you could just use solar panels to convert light into electricity. It would seem to be a simpler choice and solar-electric “fueled” EVs are tremendously cleaner than biofuel vehicles. A recent study has shown that electric fleet vehicles already are at a point where they make financial sense for companies operating in big cities. It might be more efficient/cheaper to make the biofuel for the time being but solar prices continue to decline every year.

In the case of Virent, you know how much I love to promote Wisconsin-based companies, but I have to wonder, why not just use natural gas as a fuel instead of using nat gas and biomass to create liquid hydrocarbons. Biofuel’s most likely purpose will be as a bridge fuel from now through the next few years when electric cars are not yet mainstream, practical for the masses, and affordable all the while fossil fuel (mainly oil) supplies become more scarce. Another possible bridge fuel is natural gas. It would be much simpler and cheaper. There is already a small nat gas infrastructure in the U.S. and in many other countries as well. The risks of exploiting natural gas reserves are quite low. The danger of frakquakes has mostly been overblown. Natural gas has been gaining political traction the U.S. but I would rather see the free market decide whether it makes greater sense for transportation. As we have seen lately, government “support” has not turned out so well.

Of course we will still need a lot of hydrocarbons for materials/plastic production and this is where many new biofuel processes will likely find their home. Virent is already making product for Coca Cola to use in their plastic bottles.

__________________________________________

An update on the Vostok drilling operation by the Russians in Antarctica: At least one news agency in Russia reported on February 5th  (and another article) that the scientists had indeed reached the surface of the lake. It is only one report, and I have not heard anything more official since. In any case, they will probably not be able to explore the lake or return samples to the surface until next Summer in Antarctica (our late Fall and Winter of 2012).

Have a good Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Arctic climate, Pollution