Before getting into any other subjects, I should bring everyone up to date on the latest El Nino/La Nina trend, which is one of the  more important ocean/atmosphere circulations we monitor. The latest ENSO diagnostic discussion indicates that the La Nina from this past Winter has ended. The central Pacific ocean surface temperatures are now basically neutral and are expected to stay that way for the next couple of months. By this Fall the computer model forecasts indicate a trend toward a weak El Nino. This is important. Almost every time we have an El Nino in the tropical Pacific we have warmer than normal Winter conditions here in Wisconsin and lower than normal snowfall.

CPC Model Projection

The stronger the El Nino, the warmer our Winter could be. Right now it looks like a weak El Nino will form at best, but it is early in the year, so there could be some notable changes yet before Fall arrives.

_________________________________

And now a little follow-up on a subject that was much more prevalent last year but many people seem to have forgot about. As has been mentioned in many outlets outside of the mainstream media, the Fukushima nuclear disaster is not over and it is worse than thought. Spent fuel pools (as well as other parts of the reactor) are a grave danger to the U.S. according to at least one Senator who visited the site.

_________________________________________

In another follow-up, I sometimes bring a bevy of news and research that shows things are not as bad as originally portrayed, either for the present or into the future. Last year I blogged about how the trash in the Pacific is not as bad as originally reported. Now this year we have a finding that declares the trash in the ocean could be significant, just not in the way we might have thought in the past. A oceanographer researching in the Pacific found a lot of small particles of plastic a bit below the surface. These types of particles would normally float on the surface and be visible but wave and wind action drives them a few feet below the surface. Past surveys of ocean garbage generally only skimmed the surface water. Smaller particles could more easily find their way into the food chain and cause some disruptions. What is not know is whether these particles are all over the ocean. Maybe they are only in certain areas near manufacturing centers or shipping lanes, such as southeast Asia.

Also, in the not-as-bad-as-originally-proclaimed theme, during the past couple decades the AGW discussion has been peppered with proclamations about “increased storminess”, “more hurricanes”, “more floods”, even more tornadoes. In the case of tornadoes, every time there is a big outbreak, someone usually speculates as to whether the seemingly increasing number of tornadoes is due to AGW. In another, maybe it is not as bad as originally portrayed, the case for tornadoes is not clear cut. There are many factors in the atmosphere that have to be “just right” and these factors might not all come together to produce more tornadoes in the future even if we end up with some theoretical ranges in warming from AGW.

Have a nice Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, ENSO Update, Environment, Oceans, Tornadoes

While covering alternative energy stories over the years I have mentioned many different innovations and the companies who develop them into products. Often times the companies are start-ups with big plans for the future. It has now been long enough that this blog roll contains a history of some companies from inception, to going public, to mass production, and then….decline.

Solyndra (and its scandal) went from boom to bust fairly quick. For First Solar the process has been a bit longer and they are certainly not busted…yet. I have followed the company since it went public and even cheered when their stock price rose above $160 dollars back in 2007. Here was a U.S. company using a fairly new technology (thin film solar panels) becoming a world leaders. The future looked bright. Unfortunately the future was built upon a house of cards. The housing crisis hit in the and revealed that much of the world’s economy was running on a mountain of debt, not the production of real goods and services. The debt crisis has been slow to unfold over the last 2 or 3 years but it is now hitting home in Europe where First Solar (FSLR) had traditionally been quite strong. FSLR is closing its plant in Germany – story here (use google translate to read it in English). The gist of the article is that European Nations are ending most of their alternative energy subsidies and this means the solar market is kaput. I knew that solar production was somewhat dependent on government subsidies but I didn’t realize it meant nearly everything in Europe. FSLR is also laying off some employees in Malaysia. The stock price today, $18 and change.

It is a sad turn of events for those of us who are optimistic for a clean energy future. It just shows once again that central planning does not work out very often. It is very difficult to force things into the market that are not cost competitive. The one bright spot is that so many solar panels have been  produced in the last couple of years (a lot in China) that there is an over-supply on the market and the prices are the cheapest they have ever been in relationship to the price of oil. I have been saving up some money to buy an electric car, but I might use that money on some dirt cheap (relatively speaking) solar panels instead. I was thinking about starting simple and just installing enough capacity to run the water heater, or maybe get a new solar water heater.

Then again, natural gas is also dirt cheap right now, and I mean really dirt cheap! Running the water heater with natural gas is barely costing anything. Natural gas is so cheap that I was thinking about buying a conversion kit for my car. According to a TV report I viewed a couple weeks ago, the cost of running your car on natural gas is less than half of running it on regular gasoline. At that rate, and $4 per gallon gasoline, it would not take too long to pay for itself. But I would need to fuel it up somewhere.

Kulps' Stratford CNG Station

Thankfully some forward-thinking business people in the area are already planning for more compressed natural gas (CNG) usage. Kulps of Stratford have already installed a fueling station. Maybe more will follow. Many truck fleets around the U.S. are already converting completely over to CNG, and saving A LOT of money in the process. It is a good thing.

At this point you might be thinking it is not such a ”good” thing, after all, CNG is a fossil fuel. And what about the fracking problems? First of all, the fracking problems, according to many scientists, are overblown. Second of all, CNG is the cleanest realistic fossil fuel we could use in order to clean up the air and environment, while we continue to develop better technologies (like solar and nuclear) for the future. Forget biofuels, most of which are beset with environmental and financial problems. CNG is where it is at for the short term to clean up the environment AND act as a bridge to a cleaner alternative energy future. I think environmentalists are making a HUGE strategic mistake by battening down the hatches and giving it all they got to shut down natural gas production.

Considering AGW, natural gas would not seem like a good solution until you compare it with coal, oil, and biofuels. If developed nations switched most of their energy production and transportation infrastructure over to natural gas for the next decade we would emit a lot less carbon dioxide. Not only that, it burns sooooooo much cleaner that we would simultaneously clean up the air land and water. Not only that, we would save a lot of money and stimulate the economy! Not only that, the government wouldn’t be wasting billions of dollars in loan scandals like Solyndra. In fact, the government would receive a mountain of money from drilling royalties. And the biggest “not only that” – maybe there would be less support for destructive bloody wars in the Middle East. They could keep their oil because the U.S. is literally drowning in natural gas. Did I mention that natural gas can be made from waste material as well? Natural gas seems like the ideal bridge fuel. Now if only the government would get out of the way.

Have a pleasant Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Pollution

Here is a story that would have upped the total on the Big List of bad things that are predicted to happen because of anthropogenic global warming (AGW): More variability in Summer-time temperatures is linked with a small increase in mortality risk among older people with chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, lung problems, etc… It has been predicted that not only will temperatures be warmer in coming decades but also that temps will become more variable.

I used to keep the Big List because I was amazed at all the things that were being blamed on “global warming”. Some of the predictions were rather extreme and others were contradictory. This newest study about chronic disease and temperature variability is interesting but I don’t think it gets to the heart of the matter, or the root cause. Yes, temperature variability could lead to some health problems, and it is something to keep an eye on in the future, but the bigger problem – in the U.S. anyway – is the obesity epidemic, the general decrease in health metrics overall, and the aging population. Because of these factors, we will likely have more health related mortality in the near future regardless of temperature variability. If our goal is to reduce mortality risk in the near future (by the most possible), we should focus on aging and disease specifically, instead of modulating the climate. Chronic diseases can be conquered and health can be improved by just small investments or changes in lifestyle. I work closely (part-time) with a couple of different organizations who are at the leading edge of promoting health and even rejuvenation: SENS & Longecity.

Smog in Los Angeles

We would likely also get more bang for our buck by reducing air pollution which has a much higher known correlation with increased mortality. Most of the things we would do to decrease urban air pollution (using cleaner or alternative fuels) would also be good long-term for the environment and possibly blunt some theoretical future warming from AGW.

And finally, I wonder how much of this apparent increased mortality risk associated with increased variability in temperature is due to our adaptation to indoor climate control. In contrast to the past, many people spend much more time indoors where the temperature does not change much. Most people, even poor people, have air conditioning for the Summer and central heating for the winter. The typical working stiff leaves their climate controlled home in the morning, drives to work in a climate controlled vehicle, work in a climate controlled office building and then returns home in the evening to more climate control. There are a lot of people who do not spend much more than a minute or two outdoors on a cold winter day or a hot and humid Summer day. A couple years ago when I was in Phoenix, I asked some of the people how they survive during the Summer when the temperature is 110 or 115 degrees for days on end. They said they just stay indoors all Summer. Could some of our late life susceptibility to temperature variability (small as it is) be due to our lack of encounters with temperature variation earlier in life?

_________________________________________

By now, you have probably heard about the major earthquake near Sumatra that occurred overnight. Thankfully, no major tsunamis have been spawned thus far. Another large earthquake (about 8.6) might again leave people wondering about what can be done to protect against them. They seem so sudden and unpredictable. A while back I discussed the possibility of using weather satellites to see changes in the air above a earthquake zone in order to predict when a big one might strike. A more promising technique might be to set-up ozone measuring stations near major fault zones. At least one researcher is studying the effect of ozone being created from fractured rock in order to see if this could help detect earthquakes. Even if there was an ozone build-up only seconds or minutes before an earthquake it would prove very valuable for warnings.

Another method for detecting the magnitude of an earth very quickly after it has occured might be to use GPS. GPS units placed near active fault zones would shift during an earthquake and it could be known within a minute or two how strong the quake was, and then appropriate actions could be taken. Tsunami warnings might be improved with this method as well.

Have a nice Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Earthquake

It is known that plants can communicate through chemical signals and now it has been found that they have memory. Here is some interesting recent research indicating that plants can remember drought conditions thus making them more prepared for when it happens in the future. This has apparently been known to green thumbs and gardeners for years, but I had never heard of it and now scientists have figured out how they do it. The plant’s genes are affected during a drought-like period and these protective genetic factors activiate faster the next time dry weather comes around. The common terminology is “hardening”. With-holding water from seedlings for a couple of days before transplanting them in the ground and then watering the day of transplant is a good practice to help the plants survive during periods of warm dry weather in the Summer. I knew that using a fan or exposing seedlings to wind will help them be more sturdy as they grow. Also, putting them outside or exposing them to cooler outdoor air before transplanting them will improve success. Now I can add drought hardening to my repertoire.

Trees in the Arctic

I am not sure to what extent trees can become hardened against drought, but dryness and cold are two of the factors that affects various species of trees from colonizing news areas. Places in the western U.S. do not support natural forests because of the long periods of dry weather. Trees do not move into the arctic where the weather is too cold. One of the predictions following the theory of AGW is that trees will move farther north and populate the formerly barren freezing tundra. Even though there has been some significant warming in arctic areas in recent decades, scientists have not seen as many trees move farther north as predicted. One of the reasons – dryness. Many of the arctic areas that have seen warming have also been fairly dry. Also, precipitation in the arctic is traditionally lower than most other places on the planet.

Height of Trees in the World

If more trees do in fact end up colonizing the arctic it will be important to estimate how much biomass they represent, because trees take carbon dioxide out of the air. Knowing how much “biomass” is there or might develop in the future will give us better information for climate models. But how might one measure the biomass of trees accurately. Satellite images let us know where tress are but not how “big” they are. In this measurement, perhaps LIDAR can come to the rescue. Take a look at this cool map showing the height of trees around the world. The LIDAR (think of it as a “laser-radar”) instrument on NASA’s Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite was the one that compiled the image. It will be interesting if the trees in the arctic continue to grow taller in coming years.

Have a good Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Drought, Ecology

Over the past couple of blog entries I have once again discussed the potential of AGW to negatively affect our future on this planet. As a blog topic, it is the gift that keeps on giving because of its controversial and all-encompassing nature. One of the all-encompassing themes is that the entire biosphere will be nearly destroyed by 2100 (according to some environmental forecasters). While this sounds dramatic, it is not a threat that I rank very high on my list of “existential threats”. Long before we are significantly threatened as a species by more extreme temperature fluctuations, more extreme weather, or just plain steadily increasing temperatures, we will face much greater threats from biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and advanced weapons.

Nick Bostrom

Nick Bostrom of Oxford does a good job (very in depth as well) explaining the risks we are facing in this recent article and AGW is not high on the list. He even downplays the risk of the earth getting hit by a killer asteroid (which I have written about before). Perhaps he is right as a recent analysis indicates we would be able too deflect or destroy and asteroid with nuclear bombs.

In any case, human-originated technological threats are a reality in the short term. AGW could be a threat in the medium term. It is incumbent upon us – the current generations living on the earth –  to make sure we harness our technology for the benefit of all humans (and life in general). I routinely update you on how we are inventing a new alternative energy future and I have mentioned often how we could leverage our technology to “fix” any potential future problems caused by AGW. It has always been and is our future destiny to manipulate the weather and climate to enough a degree to sustain our life on this planet. Embrace it. Keep the future safe for all that will come after us.

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Technology

Al Gore has bought another mansion. This time in California, along the ocean. The price was around $9 million. Why is this news? Because it goes to the heart of the controversy that is anthropogenic global warming (AGW). And that is, privileged elite preaching to masses about their environmental sins. I wouldn’t care one bit if Al Gore wanted to buy a $25 million mansion anywhere in the world, except for the fact that he is (or perhaps was) a cheerleader for fossil fuel restriction, part of the cabal that wants (or wanted) to artificially raise gas prices to $10 per gallon. The masses were told to conserve, to sacrifice for the good of the planet, to stop building and living in McMansions. Hasn’t Al Gore heard that the arctic sea ice is at a tipping point of no return? Hasn’t he read the news about how the Larsen B ice shelf continues to shrink, or how Greenland’s ice might melt faster than thought? If the ice is melting and the ocean is rising, then one might also ask why he bought a mansion near the ocean.

The hypocrisy is obvious.

In Al Gore’s defense, I don’t think he has been out on the environmental evangelist bandwagon too much over the last couple of years, and he claims to purchase carbon offset credits for his obscene energy usage. But this still will not do for those who are skeptical of the motivations behind AGW theory and plans to “fix” it. Most of the plans involve making life harder and more expensive for the average person. The Gore’s have nothing to worry about because they are obscenely wealthy. They can pay for carbon offsets and still afford to jet-set to exotic locations around the world to talk about “climate change”. The rest of us cannot. If the Gore’s wanted to lead by example (part of my advice in “Of Climate Persuasion“) they should have downsized and promoted the fact that they downsized. It would be nice if they used public transportation but that might be difficult since Gore is a former Vice President and requires security. How about putting a couple giant wind turbines on their property. This would be especially effective at deflecting criticism if the wind turbines blocked their view of the ocean. At the least they could exclusively drive electric cars which were charged by solar panels on their property. For all I know, maybe that is in the works.

The point is that if the bureaucratic, cultural, political, and academic elite were really concerned about AGW they would be making real sacrifices. I am concerned about fossil fuel usage mainly from an air/water/soil pollution standpoint and secondarily from potential AGW (because I am certain we will invent our way out of the problem). So I make sacrifices. Just ask my wife. I am constantly talking about reducing waste and not over-consuming. I ride a bike to work. Our house is relatively small and we have discussed moving into something smaller (easier to clean, besides saving energy). I have a few LED lights in my house and the rest are CFL. I grow a lot of my own food. We don’t have central air conditioning. We live close to work. The house temperature is set at 63 during the Winter for crying out loud! And the biggest of them all – we don’t have kids. Our carbon footprint is lower than most. I try to lead by example, but I do not force others into sacrificing a comfortable life.

On the subject of ”fixing” AGW, a recent – very unimaginative – article in Newscientist poo-pooed the idea of taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, claiming that it was next to impossible by using a couple of methods that have been suggested over the last couple of years. Of course it is not impossible because we have a natural example of carbon removal that works on the giga-ton scale every year and that is plants. Growing plants for the sole purpose of removing carbon dioxide from the air (and then creating biochar and burying it) might seem like a waste, but if the entire biosphere is going to be destroyed by AGW then it would seem like an easy solution – at least to part of the problem. Just the other day I mentioned a new technique using electricity (from solar panels) to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel. Don’t forget that carbon dioxide can also be sequestered underground as well.

No solution would be a perfect silver bullet but each little effort would contribute to the whole without creating so much divisiveness. Using more natural gas would temporarily lessen carbon emissions. Creating biochar would remove a little carbon from the air. Sequestering a bit of gas from power plants would help. Many of these things are palatable to industry and the general public. Taxing and regulating the heck out of fossil fuels might work to some extent but it will be bitterly fought the entire way because the burden falls disproportionately upon the “small” people of the world, not the Gore’s.

Have a fine Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change

I suppose it could be said of every age in human history that there was “great promise and peril” involved with all we could imagine to do and build. I wonder if today’s dichotomy is more extreme. I have often heard it said that we are currently in a Schrodinger economy that seems both alive (growing) and dead (drowning in debt) at the same times. The Lifeboat Foundation has certainly found plenty of perils to worry about in the near future. In the case of the environment, as I mentioned yesterday, we are either headed for mass starvation, death, and world-wide calamity or an abundant future with clean energy, depending on which lens you are peering through on any particular day.

I mentioned the great progress in battery and electric vehicle technology yesterday, but these will do no good unless we have a clean source of energy to “fill them up”. Wind power is an option, but it is limited, and comes with some drawbacks. Biofuels might be a good bridge fuel (to the future), but are they really that much better than natural gas (another “bridge” fuel) when everything is considered (land use, infrastructure development, etc). About the best biofuel story I have seen recently is this lab result which created liquid fuel from carbon dioxide and electricity supplied by solar panels. Who knows if this could be scaled up for industrial production, but if we could take carbon dioxide out of the air and make fuel out of it, that would be ideal from an AGW perspective – if we continue to use liquid hydrocarbons to power the economy many decades into the future.

Then there is nuclear energy, which has taken a beating since the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Japan has of course shut down nearly all of its reactors, Germany has promised to retire all of theirs, and funding is drying up for the construction of newer safer fission reactors. As far a pollution and AGW is concerned, the phasing out of nuclear power right now will probably lead to the use of more fossil fuels, not more renewable energy sources, because our Schrodinger economy is not good enough to pay for the expensive alternatives. Two new modular reactors are being considered in the U.S. but they are mired in regulatory approval and will not come online perhaps until 2020. There is still hope for nuclear fusion reactors as new computer simulations have shown some promise, but these will be quite expensive to build and are probably years away.

One of the cheaper and cleaner alternative options we have right now is solar power. The price has fallen dramatically in the last 5 years from about $4 per watt down to $1 per watt and there are many signs it will continue to get cheaper. The price drop is due in part to technological innovation but also due to an oversupply on the market. Chinese solar panel manufacturers are running full steam ahead flooding the market - with the help of government support. This has led to a burgeoning trade war between the U.S. and China and the implementation of tarrifs.

Blythe Solar Power Plant Goes Bankrupt

I know the reasoning behind tariffs, and perhaps this will help U.S. manufacturers survive, but the end result is usually bad. Tariffs (economic warfare) often lead to real physical war. They also raise the price on the taxed items. Perhaps we should just buy up all the cheap solar panels while they are on the market instead. Maybe our solar power plant projects in the U.S. would not be going bankrupt (after recieving billions in loans from the government) if we managed our purchases better. Solar would also likely benefit from a more intelligent power grid and the use of information technology to save on installation costs.

Outside of all the current technological “fixes” we could implement to the world from potential future peril (like AGW) there are also more mundane measures that would help. If it is too difficult to stop emitting carbon dioxide, maybe we could focus on methane instead, as less of the gas floating around the atmosphere would lead to a significant reduction in possible future warming of the atmosphere. Then there are more radical futuristic ideas like engineering our bodies to be less energy intensive. Although instead of re-engineering the human body, it would be much easier to stop having so many kids.

I’ll leave you with one last positive data point to consider for today: extreme poverty around the world has decreased dramatically in the last couple of decades. The percentage of people living on the equivalent of less than $1 per day has dropped from 42% in 1981 to just 14% today.  Now why would this be a positive thing for the environment? Becoming wealthier usually means increased usage of resources, doesn’t it? Typically, yes. However, wealthy people usually choose to reduce pollution as we have seen almost all metrics of pollution decline in recent decades in the developed nations of the world. When people have greater food and energy security, they do not focus as much on day-to-day living and instead on the future world where they will live. Most people choose an un-polluted future world. Also, with the price of traditional fossil fuels continuing to rise, it is likely the new prosperity will lead to the use of alternative energy sources.

Have a pleasant Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Technology

A follow-up for today:

Through the years I have periodically updated you on the subject of bee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Bee populations in parts of the world have declined dramatically. I first became aware of this because it was originally blamed on AGW (back in the hey-day when almost everything was blamed on “global warming”). CCD is important because it is estimated that about a third of our plant-based food is insect-pollinated, much of that by bees. After many years of study, and relegating AGW to a minor role, it has been surmised that CCD is probably a combination of factors, with chemicals maybe playing a significant role in the problem. The latest insight is that popular pesticides called neonicotinoids can cause bees to lose their sense of direction. It probably is not the only thing going on here but if the experiments can be replicated in real-world dosing situations (levels/amounts that are typically sprayed on plants, not high dose lab treatments) it might help turn the corner in figuring out how to keep the bee colonies thriving.

One other suggestion has been percolating is that large bee growing operations might be more susceptible to colony collapse because they do not have much genetic or dietary diversity. If all the bees are nearly the same and they all eat nearly the same food, then they might all fall prey to the same diseases as well.

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Ecology, Pollution