Global Climate Change Science News

[Warren Dew]

No, aerosols and CO2 are different. Don't you know that?

I think he does - it's just that he also knows that sulfur oxides are a pollutant.

[Schneibster]

No, aerosols and CO2 are different. Don't you know that?

I think he does - it's just that he also knows that sulfur oxides are a pollutant.

OK.

We're talking about climate change, not pollution.

Just sayin'.

[Schneibster]

The US federal annual report on greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, which comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Global Monitoring Division in Boulder, CO, called the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, shows an increase of 29% since 1990 and 1.5% from 2009 to 2010. (For the non-mathematically inclined, that's above average for the 1990-2010 period.) This is the index that best describes the way geophysicists quantify the total heat-trapping effect of various gases over their lifetimes in the atmosphere.

Read about that here.

Meanwhile, the US federal Department of Energy has just released a report last week that shows that the world has produced a record amount of emissions during the 2009-2010 period, as well. In fact, we are beyond the IPCC's 2007 "Worst case."

You can read about that here.

This is not going well. We need to get our shit together quick or we are cooked.

[Schneibster]

A new tool called "VULCAN" has been developed by NASA that has a database of carbon emissions by county in the entire US. They are still data processing, but a map for 2002 has been created and a plugin to view it in Google Earth has been released.

Details here; the Google Earth plugin is here; and the public NASA VULCAN page hosted at Arizona State is here. Happy data hunting.

[Santa_Claus]

So, is it the EOTW or not?

I'll take Climate Scientology seriously when the Govt makes folk build houses on stilts - and when they start culling a couple of billion people.

Woo for the 21st Century.

[Ronja]

I don't think this one has been posted on Ratz yet (I searched for Denver and methane):

Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field
Methane leaks during production may offset climate benefits of natural gas.

Jeff Tollefson, 07 February 2012

When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog — but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.

Led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder, the study estimates that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere — not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system. This is more than double the official inventory, but roughly in line with estimates made in 2011 that have been challenged by industry. And because methane is some 25 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, releases of that magnitude could effectively offset the environmental edge that natural gas is said to enjoy over other fossil fuels.

“If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced,” says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. ...

More here: http://www.nature.com/news/air-sampling ... eld-1.9982

[Atheist-Lite]

Chicken little was right. The sky really is falling in.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-ena ... louds.html

ENASA satellite finds Earth's clouds are getting lower

Scientists at the University of Auckland in New Zealand analyzed the first 10 years of global cloud-top height measurements (from March 2000 to February 2010) from the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument on NASA's Terra spacecraft. The study, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, revealed an overall trend of decreasing cloud height. Global average cloud height declined by around one percent over the decade, or by around 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters). Most of the reduction was due to fewer clouds occurring at very high altitudes.

(continued)

[macdoc]

Glad to see the news thread continues

Advanced power-grid research finds low-cost, low-carbon future in West
April 3, 2012




One possible scenario for the electricity system in the Western US in 2026-29. Pie charts show the proportion of different types of energy sources generating power and flowing between load areas if there were a carbon tax of $70 per ton. According to the SWITCH model, such a tax could allow the West to reach a goal of 54 percent of 1990 emissions by 2030. Credit: Daniel Kammen lab, UC Berkeley

The least expensive way for the Western U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to help prevent the worst consequences of global warming is to replace coal with renewable and other sources of energy that may include nuclear power, according to a new study by University of California, Berkeley, researchers.

The experts reached this conclusion using SWITCH, a highly detailed computer model of the electric power grid, to study generation, transmission and storage options for the states west of the Kansas/Colorado border. The model will be an important tool for utilities and government planners.

"Decarbonization of the electric power sector is critical to achieving greenhouse gas reductions that are needed for a sustainable future," said Daniel Kammen, Distinguished Professor of Energy in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group. "To meet these carbon goals, coal has to go away from the region."

One example of low-cost, low-carbon energy generation and transmission around the West by 2030.

One possible scenario for the electricity system in the Western U.S. in 2026-29. Pie charts show the proportion of different types of energy sources generating power and flowing between load areas if there were a carbon tax of $70 per ton. According to the SWITCH model, such a tax could allow the West to reach a goal of 54% of 1990 emissions by 2030.

To achieve this level of decarbonization, policy changes are needed to cap or tax carbon emissions to provide an incentive to move toward low-carbon electricity sources, Kammen and the other study authors said.

While some previous studies have emphasized the high cost of carbon taxes or caps, the new study shows that replacing coal with more gas generation, as well as renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal energy, would result in only a moderate increase to consumers in the cost of electric power – at most, 20 percent. They estimate a lower ratepayer cost, Kammen said, because the evolution of the electrical grid over the next 20 years – with coordinated construction of new power plants and transmission lines – would substantially reduce the actual consumer cost of meeting carbon emission targets.

"While the carbon price required to induce these deep carbon emission reductions is high – between $59 and $87 per ton of CO2 emitted – the cost of power is predicted to increase by at most 20 percent, because the electricity system will redesign itself around a price or cap on carbon emissions," said Kammen. "That is a modest cost considering that the future of the planet is at stake."

Coal hazards

Burning coal, a non-renewable resource, produces about 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, but also releases harmful chemicals into the environment such as mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfuric acid, responsible in some areas for acid rain and respiratory illness.

California has few coal-fired power plants, but gets about 20 percent of its electricity from coal-burning plants in neighboring states. About 46 percent of the state's power comes from gas-burning plants, 11 percent from hydroelectric, 14 percent from nuclear and 11 percent from other renewables: geothermal energy, wind and solar.

The study, published in the April issue of the journal Energy Policy, highlights an analysis using the SWITCH electricity planning model. SWITCH, which stands for Solar, Wind, Hydro and Conventional generation and Transmission Investment, uses unprecedented detail that includes generation, transmission and storage of electricity. The model was developed by Matthias Fripp to study California's renewable energy options while he was a Ph.D. student at UC Berkeley. Kammen and his group extended the model's capabilities and used it to study Western North America.

"We use the SWITCH model to identify low-carbon supply options for the West, and to see how intermittent generation may be deployed in the future," said first author James Nelson, a UC Berkeley graduate student. "We show that it is possible to reach our goals of reducing carbon emissions using many possible mixes of power, whether natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass or geothermal."

"Models like this are eagerly anticipated by many of the agencies involved in planning," Kammen said, noting that SWITCH is a power-system model that can be fine-tuned for many different types of studies.

Setting targets for 2030 emissions

Mandates called Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) currently dominate carbon reduction policy in the United States. These standards require that a certain fraction of electricity generation come from renewable sources. While California has a relatively high RPS target of 33 percent renewable sources by 2020, other Western states have less ambitious targets. Additional policy action throughout Western North America will be required to meet climate targets, Kammen said.

The UC Berkeley study concluded that current RPS targets are not sufficient to put electric power sector emissions on track to limit atmospheric levels of carbon to less than 450 ppm, a climate stabilization target recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That target requires carbon emissions from electricity production in industrialized countries to drop to no more than 54 percent of 1990 emissions by 2030.

However, the study finds that the right mix of renewable energy sources can meet climate goals given stronger carbon policy.

Of all 50 states, California has been the most aggressive in setting goals for reducing carbon emissions, with a target to return to 1990 levels by 2020. The first step along the path of changing the balance of energy sources is the establishment of a carbon trading market in California, which will be up and running in September 2012, said Kammen.

Provided by University of California - Berkeley

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-advanced-p ... uture.html

[Atheist-Lite]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18210642

Climate talks stall with nations 'wasting time'

The latest round of UN climate talks has made little progress, observers say.

The meeting in Bonn, Germany saw angry exchanges between rich nations, fast-industrialising ones and those prone to climate impacts.

Campaigners spoke of a "coalition of the unwilling" including the US, China, India and several Gulf states.

Developing countries are also concerned about the lack of firm pledges on finance beyond the end of this year.

This was the first negotiating meeting since last December's ministerial summit in Durban, South Africa.

The key outcome there was an agreement to begin talks leading to a new global deal involving all nations.

The "Durban Platform", as it is known, will see the agreement tied up by 2015 and coming into force by 2020.

Opening the Bonn session, UN climate convention (UNFCCC) executive secretary Christiana Figueres told negotiators that progress depended on ambition - "ambition to support developing countries, ambition to mobilise finance and... ambition to decisively and tangibly reduce emissions according to what science demands".

By the end, several observers including Tove Maria Ryding of Greenpeace International concluded that ambition had been largely absent.

"It's absurd to watch governments sit and point fingers and fight like little kids while the scientists explain about the terrifying impacts of climate change," she said.

(continued)

[macdoc]

Excellent Special Report on the warming in the Arctic in The Economist. Informative read.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/s ... ports?year[value][year]=2012&category=76983

[Pappa]

How to convince climate sceptics to be pro-environment

Climate change might eventually cause millions of deaths and all kinds of natural disasters. But don't tell that to a climate-change sceptic if you want them to do anything about it.

Instead, focus on how mitigation efforts can help people become more warm and caring towards others or how it can promote economic and technological development. That's the advice psychologists give after confirming the strategy in an experiment.

"I got the idea from mediation. When people have disputes there's not much point convincing one party that they're wrong," says study leader Paul Bain, a psychologist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.

Bain and colleagues first took 155 climate-change sceptics and asked them how their country – Australia – would be different in 2050 if action were taken now to mitigate climate change, and how likely they would be to engage in pro-environmental activity.

Those sceptics who thought action on climate change would make people more warm and considerate, or would promote technological or political development, were more likely to have pro-environmental intentions, such as voting for green candidates or signing petitions supporting action.

One participant wrote that "if we took action it would show we do care for the environment and therefore care for the human race".

Bain then went on to test whether telling sceptics about these "co-benefits" of climate change could affect their intentions more than telling them about the harms of inaction.

He found it did. Participants who were told about climate action's effects on interpersonal warmth or societal development were more likely to report pro-environmental intentions than those told about the health risks of climate inaction.

Earlier research has shown that scientific evidence is unlikely to convince sceptics of the reality of climate change, and that arguments focusing on negative consequences are less successful than positively framed rationales.

"The authors basically took the baton from previous researchers and ran another really strong lap," says Dan Kahan, a psychologist at Yale Law School.

Robert Gifford, a psychologist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, who has done pioneering work on the psychology of climate change, says the study suggests arguments that could help with climate campaigns. But it will be important to see if the intentions demonstrated in the study can be translated into action, he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... nment.html

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think that being a climate skeptic has to mean that one is anti-environment.

I'm as much a skeptic of climate science as I am of every other science -- in other words, I'm skeptical of everything.

In the case of climate science, though, I have always felt inadequately knowledgeable on the subject. Where I have found sense in what climate change advocates say is when there is hard data to back it up, and there is data. But, where I have found them wanting is that sometimes they do more with their data than it appears to warrant, or advocate public policy decisions that may not even solve the problem they are suggesting exists.

In any case, as a climate "don't know enough about it" person, I am very pro environment. I am mindful of recycling. I have done away with almost all of my power yard tools and I've returned to muscle power. Even my mower doesn't have an engine or a motor. My carbon footprint is well below average. I don't buy organic, because of its negative impact on the environment. And, many other pro environment stuff.

I think sometimes people confuse questioning the most dramatic, apocalyptic doomsday stuff with the idea that it's o.k. to just dump paint in the local river, and such.

[Coito ergo sum]

Considering the source, I am sure that this is being taken way out of context -- but, here is an article that popped up in my news this morning: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ve-it.html - pause in global warming for the last 16 years?

[macdoc]

Figured the nonsense would be dredged up by our resident deniers .....this IS a science thread not the repository of failed wishful thinking.....should really be in the entertainment forum.

data points are correct tho very incomplete as the Arctic data is not well represented in HadCUT4 and cherry picking the points is something deniers like to undertake.

lets take a maximum El Nino event in 1998 and start the data point from there.
Fail..
Hadcrut4 is also notoriously lacking in High latitude data at all - odd sort of disconnect between the article and a record low Arctic ice cover.

HadCRUT is underpinned by observations and we've previously been clear it may not be fully capturing changes in the Arctic because we have had so little data from the area.

Global Highlights
The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). This is the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.

The Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C (1.93°F) above average.

ENSO-neutral conditions continued in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2012 as sea surface temperature anomalies continued to rise. The June worldwide ocean surface temperatures ranked as the 10th warmest June on record.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–June 2012 was the 11th warmest on record, at 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average.

[/quote
]The starting point of the graph is the highest El Nino driven temps recorded - yet

The Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.

rest is worth reading
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/6

as is this which is indicative of the lack of data in the HADCRUT4 series the article is based on.

an El Nino is in potential stage but no guarantee.
Indeed there is some thought that LaNina's might be more frequent which might slow the impact of increasing heat retention by burying it in ocean overturn.

Does not change the physics...just the timing.

If you look at the graph here

- 1998 is a real outlier for the decade and anyone foolish enough to think warming has stopped cuz some reporter cherry picks needs to visit a psychiatrist about their delusions. Course that goes for any denier these days.



and I'll stress again the Met is hampered by poor high latitude data in the Northern Hemisphere where oddly enough the warming ocean and air busted the hell out of the low ice extent. Funny that

••••

being skeptical of everything is merely admitting to ignorance and the inability to make an informed decision.

[macdoc]

and another debunking of the "warming has stopped" nonsense
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Uya4RL22D-I/T ... +Ugly.jpeg