In September of this year, the extent of sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean declined to the second-lowest extent on record. Satellite data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center showed that the summertime sea ice cover came very close to a new record low.
Joe Comiso, senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center said the continued low minimum sea ice levels fits into the large-scale decline pattern has been occurring over the past thirty years.
“The sea ice is not only declining, the pace of the decline is becoming more drastic,” Comiso said. “The older, thicker ice is declining faster than the rest, making for a more vulnerable perennial ice cover.”
Climate prediction models once predicted that the Arctic could lose almost all of its summer ice cover by 2100, but more recently, the ice level has declined faster than the models first showed.
Friday, 7 October 2011
Mosquitoes Ignore Global Warming Predictions
Global warming is often predicted to cause a devastating increase in the range and frequency of malaria, but somebody forgot to tell the malarial mosquitoes. The World Health Organization reports global malaria deaths have declined by nearly 40% during the past decade, even as the earth experienced its “hottest decade on record.”
Al Gore focused attention on the alleged link between global warming and malaria in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The media has been eager to run with Gore’s assertions, which you can see for yourself by doing a quick Google search of the terms “malaria” and “global warming.”
Here is a small sampling of malaria claims in the media:
“Global warming could lead to a return of insect-borne diseases in Britain such as malaria … a government report warns today.” – UK Independent, May 4, 2007
“Global warming will put millions more people at risk of malaria and dengue fever, according to a United Nations report that calls for an urgent review of the health dangers posed by climate change.” – Bloomberg, Nov. 27, 2007
“Doctors say global warming may bring malaria to Britain” – Reuters, April 3, 2008
“Global warming ‘will cause malaria epidemic in Australia and Pacific Islands’” – UK Telegraph, Nov. 20, 2008
“Malaria already kills a million people a year and now, researchers fear, climate change could make the problem even worse.” – ABC News, April 1, 2011
To (almost) quote legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi, “What the hell is going on out here?!”
For one thing, a penchant for sensationalism is almost a prerequisite for working in the media. The media has always over-hyped alleged fears and threats of any kind. This is, after all, what sells newspapers.
Second, you may have noticed that for every sensationalist media story about malaria and global warming, the media was always able to “hook” the story on sensationalist claims by one or more scientists or scientific organizations. Far too many scientists are willing to play the media-hype game to call attention to themselves, which they correctly perceive will advance their careers. It is no accident that when government hands out billions of dollars each year for global warming “research,” the vast majority of those billions go to professors, universities, researchers and research institutions that have claimed we are facing a global warming crisis. Global warming funding encourages grant recipients to be alarmist, and alarmist predictions by grant recipients encourage an increase in future global warming grants. More than one university professor has told me that he or she would like to speak publicly about the absence of a global warming crisis but either fears or has explicitly been warned that doing so will jeopardize university funding and, thus, their jobs.
Third, global warming activists have perfected the “spaghetti on the wall” tactic often used by criminal defense lawyers. Lawyers are taught in first year law school that when you don’t have strong evidence to back up a criminal defense case, throw as much spaghetti on the wall as possible and hope that at least one strand will stick. In the case of global warming, real-world facts have conclusively refuted assertions that global warming is causing more hurricane strikes, more drought, a decline in polar bear populations, etc. Global warming advocates count on the fact that most people have limited time and limited inclination to delve into the underlying scientific facts. Therefore, by throwing as much spaghetti on the wall as possible, one or more strands of discredited global warming claims will nevertheless stick in the minds of an unsuspecting public. Scientifically unfounded malaria claims comprise merely one of those strands.
The case for a link between malaria and global warming has always been very weak. Malaria epidemics were once commonplace in places as far north as Russia and Finland. Yet as temperatures warmed during the past century, malaria became virtually unheard of outside of equatorial regions. This clear disconnect between rising temperatures and malaria cases should have made it clear to Al Gore and the media that many factors impact malaria incidence and that warming temperatures have, at most, only a very minor importance.
So we’ll pull out a spatula, scrape the spaghetti off the wall, and keep the spatula ready for its never-ending global warming workload.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/10/05/mosquitoes-ignore-global-warming-predictions/2/
Al Gore focused attention on the alleged link between global warming and malaria in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The media has been eager to run with Gore’s assertions, which you can see for yourself by doing a quick Google search of the terms “malaria” and “global warming.”
Here is a small sampling of malaria claims in the media:
“Global warming could lead to a return of insect-borne diseases in Britain such as malaria … a government report warns today.” – UK Independent, May 4, 2007
“Global warming will put millions more people at risk of malaria and dengue fever, according to a United Nations report that calls for an urgent review of the health dangers posed by climate change.” – Bloomberg, Nov. 27, 2007
“Doctors say global warming may bring malaria to Britain” – Reuters, April 3, 2008
“Global warming ‘will cause malaria epidemic in Australia and Pacific Islands’” – UK Telegraph, Nov. 20, 2008
“Malaria already kills a million people a year and now, researchers fear, climate change could make the problem even worse.” – ABC News, April 1, 2011
To (almost) quote legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi, “What the hell is going on out here?!”
For one thing, a penchant for sensationalism is almost a prerequisite for working in the media. The media has always over-hyped alleged fears and threats of any kind. This is, after all, what sells newspapers.
Second, you may have noticed that for every sensationalist media story about malaria and global warming, the media was always able to “hook” the story on sensationalist claims by one or more scientists or scientific organizations. Far too many scientists are willing to play the media-hype game to call attention to themselves, which they correctly perceive will advance their careers. It is no accident that when government hands out billions of dollars each year for global warming “research,” the vast majority of those billions go to professors, universities, researchers and research institutions that have claimed we are facing a global warming crisis. Global warming funding encourages grant recipients to be alarmist, and alarmist predictions by grant recipients encourage an increase in future global warming grants. More than one university professor has told me that he or she would like to speak publicly about the absence of a global warming crisis but either fears or has explicitly been warned that doing so will jeopardize university funding and, thus, their jobs.
Third, global warming activists have perfected the “spaghetti on the wall” tactic often used by criminal defense lawyers. Lawyers are taught in first year law school that when you don’t have strong evidence to back up a criminal defense case, throw as much spaghetti on the wall as possible and hope that at least one strand will stick. In the case of global warming, real-world facts have conclusively refuted assertions that global warming is causing more hurricane strikes, more drought, a decline in polar bear populations, etc. Global warming advocates count on the fact that most people have limited time and limited inclination to delve into the underlying scientific facts. Therefore, by throwing as much spaghetti on the wall as possible, one or more strands of discredited global warming claims will nevertheless stick in the minds of an unsuspecting public. Scientifically unfounded malaria claims comprise merely one of those strands.
The case for a link between malaria and global warming has always been very weak. Malaria epidemics were once commonplace in places as far north as Russia and Finland. Yet as temperatures warmed during the past century, malaria became virtually unheard of outside of equatorial regions. This clear disconnect between rising temperatures and malaria cases should have made it clear to Al Gore and the media that many factors impact malaria incidence and that warming temperatures have, at most, only a very minor importance.
So we’ll pull out a spatula, scrape the spaghetti off the wall, and keep the spatula ready for its never-ending global warming workload.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/10/05/mosquitoes-ignore-global-warming-predictions/2/
Sunday, 2 October 2011
Brazil without poverty, is a Brazil with forests
Brazilian President Dilma Rouseff passes by activists holding a banner reading "Brazil without poverty, is Brazil with Forests". Image: Rodrigo Baleia
On a sunny afternoon this week, I waited outside Manaus’ ornate 19th century opera house Teatro Amazonas, with a group of Brazilian Greenpeace activists who wanted to send President Dilma Rouseff a message. While we were outside, Dilma was inside, flanked with ministers and senators singing the praises of her new rural welfare initiative ‘Brasil sem miseria’ (Brazil without misery/poverty).
Addressing rural poverty is a vital cause, yet the irony is that while President Dilma champions this new initiative to relieve poverty, proposed changes to Brazil’s forest code legislation are threatening the livelihoods of forest communities by legalizing millions of hectares of new forest destruction and granting amnesty for forest crimes.
That afternoon the activists urged President Dilma to honour her promises and not approve the forest code legislation. As she left the Opera House they presented banners, “Brazil without misery/poverty, is a Brazil with forests.” (Brasil sem miseria é Brasil com floresta). Activists also tried to give President Dilma an Açai sapling, an iconic tree of the Amazon, with a note- “I will be very comfortable in your garden. You know that I am important for the people of the Amazon. Take care of me, because I am worried about this new forest code. Sincerely, Açai.”
My colleague Rafael Cruz, a Brazilian Amazon Forest Campaigner said it best; “Scientists, family farmers, and civil society, have all protested the new forest code. Despite their criticisms, the Senate keeps moving the bill forward and President Dilma’s government is not engaged.”
“If we want to eliminate poverty, we need to keep our forests standing; they provide for the livelihoods of many of our country’s poor and invigorate our agriculture.”
Rafael referenced the false choice presented by those who want to destroy our forests. He pointed out that time and time again, forest destruction does little to lift people out of poverty. Despite 18% of the Amazon rainforest disappearing, the region maintains a low score on the Human Development Index especially in areas where forest destruction is the strongest.
The threats to the Amazon represented by the proposed changes to Brazil’s Forest Code continue to raise concern all over the world. Just yesterday, members of the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution on the Rio +20 Earth Summit that expressed concern over the new Forest Code legislation. The resolution characterized the Brazilian legislation as a threat to efforts to stop global warming and it also urged Brazil, the host nation for Rio +20, to make “a clear commitment to protect the Amazon forest and stem criminal harassment of representatives of civil society pursuing environmental protection.”
The banner these Greenpeace activists are holding up for President Dilma Rouseff to see reads: "Congress, turn off the chainsaws". Referring to the proposed changes to Brazil's Forest Code now being considered. Image: Rodrigo Baleia
This resolution is referring to the increased threats and violence occurring in the Amazon, since the Forest Code legislation was introduced in the Brazilian Congress. Six environmental activists have been killed since the end of May, and numerous others threatened.
Both the vast majority of Brazilians against the legislation, (79%) as well as the European Parliament, have reason to be concerned; the new law, passed by the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (the lower house) this past May, is starting to move through committees in the Brazilian Senate. The law would allow amnesty for forest crimes and reduce the size of protected areas. Conservative estimates of the new law project 47 million hectares of deforestation - at least the size of California or Sweden.
Allowing congress to weaken Brazil’s forest protections and legalize millions of hectares of deforestation could be a step backwards for Brazil’s fight against poverty. Decades of deforestation in the Amazon has proven to be an ineffective way to lift people out of poverty in rural areas. Furthermore, the impact on poverty of the devastating forest code legislation could be global. The world can’t address global warming without the Amazon and impoverished communities all over the world are especially vulnerable to climate change.
Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/brazil-without-poverty-is-a-brazil-with-fores/blog/37134/
What the frack is going on here?
Hydraulic fracturing sends “huge volumes of toxic fluids” deep underground at high pressure, to fracture shale rock and release natural gas, Food & Water Watch claims. “Billions of gallons of toxic fluids” will “contaminate” groundwater and drinking water “for generations.” We need to “Ban Fracking Now.”
Environmentalists used to support “clean natural gas.” Whence the intolerant new attitude?
Oil companies have been using hydraulic fracturing for 60 years to get the most petroleum possible from grudging rock formations deep beneath the Earth. A few years ago, Mitchell Energy and others combined HF with horizontal drilling to tap into hydrocarbon-rich shale deposits that previously refused to surrender their energy riches. Countless fracking operations later, the results have been spectacular.
Tapping the Marcellus, Bakken, Barnett, Haynesville and other formations has created jobs, generated revenues and rejuvenated moribund industries in many states that have shale deposits or manufacture the fluids, pipes and other equipment used in these operations. US natural gas production and estimated reserves have soared, and wellhead prices have dropped from $11 per thousand cubic feet in 2008 to $4 today. Canada is actively drilling, while Poland and Britain are evaluating early exploration results...
The Fort Worth Chamber says fracking supports 110,000 direct and secondary jobs in the region and added billions in property and sales tax revenues. Loren C. Scott & Associates calculates that shale drilling has added $11 billion to Louisiana’s economy. Pennsylvania’s Labor and Industry Department reports that HF has already generated 72,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in state tax revenues, and could bring another $20 billion by 2020. West Virginia and North Dakota report similar success.
Soaring supplies and plummeting prices have persuaded Dow, Shell, Sasol, Ormet and other companies to open, reopen or expand plants to produce ethylene, petrochemicals, aluminum – and more jobs.
That’s excellent energy and economic news, at a time when we sure could use a little good news.
Certainly, with all this activity going on – much of it in states that haven’t seen much drilling in decades, if ever – there is a clear need for regulations and oversight. We need to ensure that drilling and fracking are done properly, and chemicals are handled, disposed of and recycled correctly, to prevent harm to human health, wildlife habitats and environmental quality. While most shale gas deposits are thousands of feet below groundwater aquifers and drinking water supplies, we need to ensure that well casings are properly installed and cemented, so that there is no danger of contamination.
But ban hydraulic fracturing – and abandon these revenues and jobs? What the frack is going on here?
Think about it. This is free enterprise in action. It pays its own way. It doesn’t need subsidies, mandates, tariffs, or bureaucrats and politicians deciding which companies and industries win or lose. HF generates real, sustainable jobs, plus significant tax and royalty revenue, right here in America. It provides energy that works 24/7/365 … and is far cheaper than land-hungry wind turbine and solar panel installations. In fact, the shale gas revolution is making it even harder to justify these “renewable energy alternatives.”
Natural gas, specifically shale gas, is essential for powering backup generators for unreliable wind and solar installations. However, low gas prices make wind and solar even less competitive. The better solution is just to go with gas, coal and nuclear for electricity generation, and forget about expensive, eco-unfriendly, subsidy-dependent, crony capitalist wind and solar.
HF also demolishes the “peak oil and gas” mantra that we are rapidly running out of hydrocarbon energy. It again demonstrates that geologist Wallace Pratt was right. “Oil is first found in the minds of men.” Once companies devised new ways to extract shale gas bounties, vast new reserves became available.
Today, in reality, the only reason we might run out of energy is that government won’t let us drill.
People want and need reliable, affordable power. Many environmentalists support Paul Ehrlich’s opposite sentiment, that “giving society cheap energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
No wonder unrepentant fossil fuel haters are going ballistic over fracking.
The rest of us just want honest answers, carefully conducted drilling, fracking and production operations – and the benefits that come with them. Thankfully, the facts are relatively easy to find.
The Wall Street Journal laid many out clearly and forcefully in a June 2011 editorial, “The facts about fracking: The real risks of the shale gas revolution and how to manage them.” Whether it’s cancer, drinking water contamination, toxic or radioactive chemicals, earthquakes or regulations – the truth is miles from the misrepresentations, hysteria and fear-mongering propagated by Food & Water Watch and similar groups.
People who want to know how hydraulic fracturing is actually done – and what chemicals are actually used, even in specific states – can find a wealth of information at well-designed industry websites provided by Chesapeake Energy, the Ground Water Protection Council and Halliburton.
As the Halliburton site notes, 99.5% of fracking fluids is water and sand (the sand is carried into fractures, to keep them open and release the gas). However, forcing that fluid mix down wellbores and into solid rock formations thousands of feet underground requires advanced engineering and special chemicals to:
* Keep the sand suspended in the liquid, so that it is carried deep into the fractures;
* Fight the growth of bacteria in the fluid and wellbore, so that gas flows and pipes don’t corrode; and
* Reduce the surface tension of water that comes in contact with the reservoir, to improve gas production.
Different subsurface rock formations and conditions require different formulations for the 0.5% of the HF fluids that involves special chemicals. In the past, diesel oil and various industrial chemicals were used. Today, to an ever-increasing degree, the chemicals are borrowed from the food and cosmetics industry. The technical names sound daunting or even scary (inorganic acids, polysaccharide polymers and sulfonated alcohol, for instance), but these CleanStream chemicals (Halliburton’s terminology) are found in cheese and beer, canned fish and dairy desserts, and marshmallows and shampoo, respectively.
Even these three chemical groups (and other food and cosmetic chemicals) are classified as “hazardous” by the EPA and FDA, because in high doses some can cause cancer and other problems in animals. So you could say Food & Water Watch is technically correct when it tries to scare people by saying fracking fluids contain “toxic chemicals.” But the same point would apply to alcoholic beverages, fruit juices, lip liners, food starch, hand soap and countless other everyday products. Should we ban them too, along with coffee, broccoli and other foods that naturally contain even more potent carcinogens?
In other advanced techniques, instead of chemical biocides to kill bacteria, some systems now employ ultraviolet light, and mobile units now allow crews to treat and reuse water, reducing the amount of freshwater required in fracking. Other improvements are being made on a regular basis, as explained in simple lay terms on websites like those mentioned above. You can even find psychedelic 3-D maps of hydraulic fracturing operations and explanations of other fascinating technologies.
New York and other states, the Delaware River Basin Commission, Canadian provinces, Britain, Poland, the European Commission, and many Asian and Latin American countries are pondering HF as part of the solution to their energy, unemployment, economic and revenue problems. Getting the facts is essential.
Shale gas is an energy policy game changer. The last thing we need is more laws, regulations and policies based on misrepresentations and fabrications from outfits like Food & Water Watch.
Source: http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9449-what-the-frack-is-going-on-here
Environmentalists used to support “clean natural gas.” Whence the intolerant new attitude?
Oil companies have been using hydraulic fracturing for 60 years to get the most petroleum possible from grudging rock formations deep beneath the Earth. A few years ago, Mitchell Energy and others combined HF with horizontal drilling to tap into hydrocarbon-rich shale deposits that previously refused to surrender their energy riches. Countless fracking operations later, the results have been spectacular.
Tapping the Marcellus, Bakken, Barnett, Haynesville and other formations has created jobs, generated revenues and rejuvenated moribund industries in many states that have shale deposits or manufacture the fluids, pipes and other equipment used in these operations. US natural gas production and estimated reserves have soared, and wellhead prices have dropped from $11 per thousand cubic feet in 2008 to $4 today. Canada is actively drilling, while Poland and Britain are evaluating early exploration results...
The Fort Worth Chamber says fracking supports 110,000 direct and secondary jobs in the region and added billions in property and sales tax revenues. Loren C. Scott & Associates calculates that shale drilling has added $11 billion to Louisiana’s economy. Pennsylvania’s Labor and Industry Department reports that HF has already generated 72,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in state tax revenues, and could bring another $20 billion by 2020. West Virginia and North Dakota report similar success.
Soaring supplies and plummeting prices have persuaded Dow, Shell, Sasol, Ormet and other companies to open, reopen or expand plants to produce ethylene, petrochemicals, aluminum – and more jobs.
That’s excellent energy and economic news, at a time when we sure could use a little good news.
Certainly, with all this activity going on – much of it in states that haven’t seen much drilling in decades, if ever – there is a clear need for regulations and oversight. We need to ensure that drilling and fracking are done properly, and chemicals are handled, disposed of and recycled correctly, to prevent harm to human health, wildlife habitats and environmental quality. While most shale gas deposits are thousands of feet below groundwater aquifers and drinking water supplies, we need to ensure that well casings are properly installed and cemented, so that there is no danger of contamination.
But ban hydraulic fracturing – and abandon these revenues and jobs? What the frack is going on here?
Think about it. This is free enterprise in action. It pays its own way. It doesn’t need subsidies, mandates, tariffs, or bureaucrats and politicians deciding which companies and industries win or lose. HF generates real, sustainable jobs, plus significant tax and royalty revenue, right here in America. It provides energy that works 24/7/365 … and is far cheaper than land-hungry wind turbine and solar panel installations. In fact, the shale gas revolution is making it even harder to justify these “renewable energy alternatives.”
Natural gas, specifically shale gas, is essential for powering backup generators for unreliable wind and solar installations. However, low gas prices make wind and solar even less competitive. The better solution is just to go with gas, coal and nuclear for electricity generation, and forget about expensive, eco-unfriendly, subsidy-dependent, crony capitalist wind and solar.
HF also demolishes the “peak oil and gas” mantra that we are rapidly running out of hydrocarbon energy. It again demonstrates that geologist Wallace Pratt was right. “Oil is first found in the minds of men.” Once companies devised new ways to extract shale gas bounties, vast new reserves became available.
Today, in reality, the only reason we might run out of energy is that government won’t let us drill.
People want and need reliable, affordable power. Many environmentalists support Paul Ehrlich’s opposite sentiment, that “giving society cheap energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
No wonder unrepentant fossil fuel haters are going ballistic over fracking.
The rest of us just want honest answers, carefully conducted drilling, fracking and production operations – and the benefits that come with them. Thankfully, the facts are relatively easy to find.
The Wall Street Journal laid many out clearly and forcefully in a June 2011 editorial, “The facts about fracking: The real risks of the shale gas revolution and how to manage them.” Whether it’s cancer, drinking water contamination, toxic or radioactive chemicals, earthquakes or regulations – the truth is miles from the misrepresentations, hysteria and fear-mongering propagated by Food & Water Watch and similar groups.
People who want to know how hydraulic fracturing is actually done – and what chemicals are actually used, even in specific states – can find a wealth of information at well-designed industry websites provided by Chesapeake Energy, the Ground Water Protection Council and Halliburton.
As the Halliburton site notes, 99.5% of fracking fluids is water and sand (the sand is carried into fractures, to keep them open and release the gas). However, forcing that fluid mix down wellbores and into solid rock formations thousands of feet underground requires advanced engineering and special chemicals to:
* Keep the sand suspended in the liquid, so that it is carried deep into the fractures;
* Fight the growth of bacteria in the fluid and wellbore, so that gas flows and pipes don’t corrode; and
* Reduce the surface tension of water that comes in contact with the reservoir, to improve gas production.
Different subsurface rock formations and conditions require different formulations for the 0.5% of the HF fluids that involves special chemicals. In the past, diesel oil and various industrial chemicals were used. Today, to an ever-increasing degree, the chemicals are borrowed from the food and cosmetics industry. The technical names sound daunting or even scary (inorganic acids, polysaccharide polymers and sulfonated alcohol, for instance), but these CleanStream chemicals (Halliburton’s terminology) are found in cheese and beer, canned fish and dairy desserts, and marshmallows and shampoo, respectively.
Even these three chemical groups (and other food and cosmetic chemicals) are classified as “hazardous” by the EPA and FDA, because in high doses some can cause cancer and other problems in animals. So you could say Food & Water Watch is technically correct when it tries to scare people by saying fracking fluids contain “toxic chemicals.” But the same point would apply to alcoholic beverages, fruit juices, lip liners, food starch, hand soap and countless other everyday products. Should we ban them too, along with coffee, broccoli and other foods that naturally contain even more potent carcinogens?
In other advanced techniques, instead of chemical biocides to kill bacteria, some systems now employ ultraviolet light, and mobile units now allow crews to treat and reuse water, reducing the amount of freshwater required in fracking. Other improvements are being made on a regular basis, as explained in simple lay terms on websites like those mentioned above. You can even find psychedelic 3-D maps of hydraulic fracturing operations and explanations of other fascinating technologies.
New York and other states, the Delaware River Basin Commission, Canadian provinces, Britain, Poland, the European Commission, and many Asian and Latin American countries are pondering HF as part of the solution to their energy, unemployment, economic and revenue problems. Getting the facts is essential.
Shale gas is an energy policy game changer. The last thing we need is more laws, regulations and policies based on misrepresentations and fabrications from outfits like Food & Water Watch.
Source: http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9449-what-the-frack-is-going-on-here
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Greenland meltdown
fter a record-breaking 2010 in terms of surface melt area in Greenland [Tedesco et al, 2011], numbers from 2011 have been eagerly awaited. Marco Tedseco and his group have now just reported their results. This is unrelated to other Greenland meltdown this week that occurred at the launch of the new Times Atlas.
The melt index anomaly is the number of days with detectable surface melt compared to the baseline period of 1979-2010. The higher the number, the more melt days there were. While this did not match the record 2010 levels, depending on the analysis 2011 was either the 3rd or 6th year in the rankings.
Analysis of the surface mass balance via regional modelling demonstrates that there has been an increasing imbalance between snowfall and runoff over recent years, leading to a lowering of ice elevation, even in the absence of dynamical ice effects (which are also occurring, mostly near the ice sheet edge).
Figure 2. Regional model-based estimates of snowfall (orange), surface melt and runoff (yellow) and the net accumulation (Gt/yr) (blue) since 1958.
Continue Reading: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/greenland-meltdown/
The melt index anomaly is the number of days with detectable surface melt compared to the baseline period of 1979-2010. The higher the number, the more melt days there were. While this did not match the record 2010 levels, depending on the analysis 2011 was either the 3rd or 6th year in the rankings. 
Analysis of the surface mass balance via regional modelling demonstrates that there has been an increasing imbalance between snowfall and runoff over recent years, leading to a lowering of ice elevation, even in the absence of dynamical ice effects (which are also occurring, mostly near the ice sheet edge).
Figure 2. Regional model-based estimates of snowfall (orange), surface melt and runoff (yellow) and the net accumulation (Gt/yr) (blue) since 1958.
Continue Reading: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/greenland-meltdown/
Australia Farmers to Benefit from Carbon Trading
Australia Farmers to Benefit from Carbon Trading
Australia's Parliament is expected to pass the world's first nationwide system for the creation and trade of carbon credits by its farming and forestry industries.
The Carbon Farming Initiative will allow farmers and investors to generate tradeable carbon offsets from agricultural projects.
While farmers and forest managers are not required to reduce emissions or participate in carbon trading, the new system creates strong incentives for them to do so.
Through actions like planting trees, reducing fertilizer use and cutting methane emissions from livestock, they can receive carbon credits to sell into the nation's carbon trading platform, scheduled for a 2014 start date.
Land use in Australia accounts for roughly 23% of the country's greenhouse gas emissions; estimates suggest the trading system could reduce emissions by 460 million tons by 2050.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard's Labor Party passed the bill in the Senate, with support of the Green party, and the House of Representatives is expected to pass the bill as well.
Passage is an encouraging sign that Gillard's controversial carbon tax plan may have enough support to pass before the end of the year.
However conservative opposition has pledged to scrap all carbon trading and tax plans if voted into power in 2013.
Japan Considers Comprehensive Renewable Energy Incentives
Japan's Parliament could pass a comprehensive renewable energy bill this week.
The country is looking for a way to bring stability to its energy industry following the March tsunami that caused the meltdown of nuclear reactors in Fukushima and a loss of confidence in the nuclear industry.
Lawmakers are considering a national system for incentivizing solar, wind, biomass and other renewable energy sources with a 20-year feed-in tariff that would require utilities to purchase all renewable energy at predetermined prices.
The goal is to boost renewable generation by more than 30 gigawatts (GW) over the next decade - the equivalent of 12% of Japan's total generation capacity before the nuclear meltdown.
Japan's three major political parties have expressed support for the legislation, but agreeing to the actual details could significantly weaken the system or derail the effort all together, according to Reuters.
Determining the feed-in tariff rates will be the first major obstacle. Costs will be passed along to consumers on their utility bills, and political instability in Japan could make it difficult to find a consensus on pricing.
The country's fragmented power grid is also a concern. "The bills are half-baked. The investment plan is there but financing is lacking -- there is no detailed roadmap to finance infrastructure investments needed to make the scheme work, such as setting up proper transmission networks," Hirofumi Kawachi, senior analyst at Mizuho Investors Securities told Reuters.
But if a strong incentive system is put in place, it will be a boon for the solar industry in particular, creating a market that could rival that of Germany, Italy and the US where only a weak market currently exists.
German Rail Sets Course for 100% Renewable Energy
Germany's railway company Deutsche Bahn is boosting its commitment to renewable energy with a goal of being carbon-free by 2050.
The company has been criticized for a lack of renewable energy development in the past, but it appears to be responding to the swift change in public opinion following the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Germany's government shut down eight of its oldest nuclear power plants, made plans to shut down the remaining nine plants by 2022, and renewed incentives for renewable energy development.
Currently Deutsche Bahn uses 20% renewable energy to power its trains and operations, and has set a goal of increasing to 28% by 2014 and 100% by 2050.
Railways are one of the largest consumers of electricity, accounting for about 2% of all electricity consumption in Germany.
Deutsche Bahn is a large landholder and already operates two wind farms. The company is likely to expand its investment in wind, place solar systems on top of thousands of train stations, and increase the amount of power it purchases from hydroelectric plants.
Source: http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22820
Australia's Parliament is expected to pass the world's first nationwide system for the creation and trade of carbon credits by its farming and forestry industries.
The Carbon Farming Initiative will allow farmers and investors to generate tradeable carbon offsets from agricultural projects.
While farmers and forest managers are not required to reduce emissions or participate in carbon trading, the new system creates strong incentives for them to do so.
Through actions like planting trees, reducing fertilizer use and cutting methane emissions from livestock, they can receive carbon credits to sell into the nation's carbon trading platform, scheduled for a 2014 start date.
Land use in Australia accounts for roughly 23% of the country's greenhouse gas emissions; estimates suggest the trading system could reduce emissions by 460 million tons by 2050.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard's Labor Party passed the bill in the Senate, with support of the Green party, and the House of Representatives is expected to pass the bill as well.
Passage is an encouraging sign that Gillard's controversial carbon tax plan may have enough support to pass before the end of the year.
However conservative opposition has pledged to scrap all carbon trading and tax plans if voted into power in 2013.
Japan Considers Comprehensive Renewable Energy Incentives
Japan's Parliament could pass a comprehensive renewable energy bill this week.
The country is looking for a way to bring stability to its energy industry following the March tsunami that caused the meltdown of nuclear reactors in Fukushima and a loss of confidence in the nuclear industry.
Lawmakers are considering a national system for incentivizing solar, wind, biomass and other renewable energy sources with a 20-year feed-in tariff that would require utilities to purchase all renewable energy at predetermined prices.
The goal is to boost renewable generation by more than 30 gigawatts (GW) over the next decade - the equivalent of 12% of Japan's total generation capacity before the nuclear meltdown.
Japan's three major political parties have expressed support for the legislation, but agreeing to the actual details could significantly weaken the system or derail the effort all together, according to Reuters.
Determining the feed-in tariff rates will be the first major obstacle. Costs will be passed along to consumers on their utility bills, and political instability in Japan could make it difficult to find a consensus on pricing.
The country's fragmented power grid is also a concern. "The bills are half-baked. The investment plan is there but financing is lacking -- there is no detailed roadmap to finance infrastructure investments needed to make the scheme work, such as setting up proper transmission networks," Hirofumi Kawachi, senior analyst at Mizuho Investors Securities told Reuters.
But if a strong incentive system is put in place, it will be a boon for the solar industry in particular, creating a market that could rival that of Germany, Italy and the US where only a weak market currently exists.
German Rail Sets Course for 100% Renewable Energy
Germany's railway company Deutsche Bahn is boosting its commitment to renewable energy with a goal of being carbon-free by 2050.
The company has been criticized for a lack of renewable energy development in the past, but it appears to be responding to the swift change in public opinion following the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Germany's government shut down eight of its oldest nuclear power plants, made plans to shut down the remaining nine plants by 2022, and renewed incentives for renewable energy development.
Currently Deutsche Bahn uses 20% renewable energy to power its trains and operations, and has set a goal of increasing to 28% by 2014 and 100% by 2050.
Railways are one of the largest consumers of electricity, accounting for about 2% of all electricity consumption in Germany.
Deutsche Bahn is a large landholder and already operates two wind farms. The company is likely to expand its investment in wind, place solar systems on top of thousands of train stations, and increase the amount of power it purchases from hydroelectric plants.
Source: http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22820
Texas Drought Could Last Until 2020 Says Texas A&M Climatologist
It is rather well-known now that transportation is one of the leading causes of global warming pollution in the world, and especially in the United States. NASA actually reported in February that motor vehicles are the largest net contributor to global warming pollution.
Now, a new scientific finding in the journal Environmental Science & Technology shows that, counter to what most of us believe, driving a car causes more global warming pollution than flying the same distance in a plane.
The study, “Specific Climate Impact of Passenger and Freight Transport,” finds that, in the short run, planes cause more global warming because they create more short-lived warming processes at high altitudes.
However, when you take ‘everything’ — long- and short-lived gases, aerosols and cloud effects from transportation around the world — into account, an average car trip increases global temperatures more than an average flight the same distance.
Furthermore, passenger trains and buses cause even four to five times less global warming pollution than automobiles per passenger mile.
Of course, there are a lot of intricacies (i.e. the specific car or plane or bus used), but this is the general finding.
“As planes fly at high altitudes, their impact on ozone and clouds is disproportionately high, though short lived. Although the exact magnitude is uncertain, the net effect is a strong, short-term, temperature increase,” lead author of the study, Dr. Jens Borken-Kleefeld, said. “Car travel emits more carbon dioxide than air travel per passenger mile. As carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere longer than the other gases, cars have a more harmful impact on climate change in the long term.”
The point that you probably wouldn’t take such long trips by car that you take by plane was not a part of the study and is an important matter to bring up as well.
Nonetheless, this study confirms again that driving is one of the leading ways humans cause global warming. Get out of your car and onto a bike or bus or subway or train today in order to help stop global warming.
Texas’ historic and lingering drought has already worn out its welcome, but it could easily stay around for years and there is a chance it might last another five years or even until 2020, says a Texas A&M University weather expert.Now, a new scientific finding in the journal Environmental Science & Technology shows that, counter to what most of us believe, driving a car causes more global warming pollution than flying the same distance in a plane.
The study, “Specific Climate Impact of Passenger and Freight Transport,” finds that, in the short run, planes cause more global warming because they create more short-lived warming processes at high altitudes.
However, when you take ‘everything’ — long- and short-lived gases, aerosols and cloud effects from transportation around the world — into account, an average car trip increases global temperatures more than an average flight the same distance.
Furthermore, passenger trains and buses cause even four to five times less global warming pollution than automobiles per passenger mile.
Of course, there are a lot of intricacies (i.e. the specific car or plane or bus used), but this is the general finding.
“As planes fly at high altitudes, their impact on ozone and clouds is disproportionately high, though short lived. Although the exact magnitude is uncertain, the net effect is a strong, short-term, temperature increase,” lead author of the study, Dr. Jens Borken-Kleefeld, said. “Car travel emits more carbon dioxide than air travel per passenger mile. As carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere longer than the other gases, cars have a more harmful impact on climate change in the long term.”
The point that you probably wouldn’t take such long trips by car that you take by plane was not a part of the study and is an important matter to bring up as well.
Nonetheless, this study confirms again that driving is one of the leading ways humans cause global warming. Get out of your car and onto a bike or bus or subway or train today in order to help stop global warming.
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12tnj)
John Nielsen-Gammon, who serves as Texas State Climatologist and professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M, says the culprit is the likely establishment of a new La Niña in the central Pacific Ocean. A La Niña is formed when colder than usual ocean temperatures form in the central Pacific, and these tend to create wetter than normal conditions in the Pacific Northwest but also drier than normal conditions in the Southwest. A La Niña has been blamed for starting the current drought but the new one, which began developing several weeks ago, is likely to extend drought conditions for Texas and much of the Southwest.
Currently, about 95 percent of Texas is in either a severe or exceptional drought status and the past year has been the worst one-year drought in the state’s history, Nielsen-Gammon adds.
“This is looking more and more like a multi-year drought,” explains the Texas A&M professor.
Credit: Texas A&M
“September is already proving to be an exceptionally dry month and overall, little more than an inch of rain on average has occurred over Texas, compared to about three inches in a normal year. So a very dry state has become even drier.”
Many parts of Texas are from 10 to 20 inches behind in rainfall.
“We know that Texas has experienced droughts that lasted several years,” adds Nielsen-Gammon. “Many residents remember the drought of the 1950s, and tree ring records show that drought conditions occasionally last for a decade or even longer. I’m concerned because the same ocean conditions that seem to have contributed to the 1950s drought have been back for several years now and may last another five to 15 years.”
The drought has devastated farmers and ranchers, and officials have estimated agriculture losses at more than $5.2 billion. This summer, hundreds of wildfires erupted in Texas and burned more than 127,000 acres, the most ever, and lake levels are down as much as 50 feet in some lakes while several West Texas lakes have completely dried up.
Numerous Texas cities set heat records this summer, such as Wichita Falls, which recorded 100 days of 100-degree heat, the most ever for that city. Dallas also set a record with 70 days of 100-degree heat, and the city had to close down 25 sports fields because large cracks in the ground were deemed unsafe for athletic competition.
“Our best chance to weaken the drought would have been a tropical system coming in from the gulf, but that never happened and hurricane season is just about over for us,” Nielsen-Gammon reports. “There’s still hope for significant rain through the end of October while tropical moisture is still hanging around, but that’s all it is – a hope.”
“In the next few months, the outlook is not all that promising for rain. Parts of Texas, such as the Panhandle and far Northeast Texas, have a better chance than the rest of the state,” he adds.
“Because Texas needs substantially above-normal rain to recover, and it’s not likely to get it, I expect that most of the state will still be in major drought through next summer.”
Contacts and sources:
Compensation could boost economy: bank
Household compensation linked to the introduction of a carbon price could boost consumer spending and stimulate the economy in the first half of 2012, a major bank says.
Westpac backs a carbon price as necessary to reduce "the price gap between cheap and dirty technologies and clean but usually more expensive processes".
In its submission to the parliamentary inquiry into 19 carbon price bills, the bank also said the household compensation - delivered through changes to income tax rates and welfare payments - could mildly expand stressed parts of the economy.
The rushed parliamentary inquiry, which heard evidence in three cities this week and reports back next Friday, received wildly divergent evidence on the merits of laws the government says will transform the economy.
In evidence before the inquiry this week:
■The Business Council of Australia said the government had assumed all countries would meet their United Nations greenhouse targets, and had not included provisions if others failed to deliver.
■The Australian Coal Association said the scheme would cost the coalmining industry $16.9 billion over a decade. It said job growth would continue, but at a 27 per cent slower rate than without a carbon price.
■GE Energy Australia and New Zealand submitted research that found Australia badly trailed other major countries in "carbon productivity" - the level of economic output per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions. Its report said improvements in carbon productivity were likely to make it easier to develop the economy while cutting emissions.
The scheme before Parliament would start with a fixed price of $23 a tonne of carbon dioxide emissions before moving to a market-based emissions trading scheme in 2015.
It aims to cut at least 160 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2020.
It overcompensates lower-income households, which Westpac said generally spend more. About one in three households would be worse off, with average weekly bills estimated to increase by $9.90.
Westpac said the carbon price would raise only one-third of the revenue of the GST, and have a significantly smaller impact on living costs.
It suggested that not introducing a carbon price could lead to investment in carbon-intensive infrastructure, potentially creating "stranded assets" as the world moved to cut emissions. "Without a clear policy framework that matches investment horizons, Australian business has little incentive to invest now in newer, cleaner technologies.''
The Age and the Committee for Melbourne are hosting a debate on carbon pricing on Thursday, examining the question: what's really best for our nation's future? Speakers are Greens member for Melbourne Adam Bandt, parliamentary secretary for climate change and energy efficiency Mark Dreyfus and shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage Greg Hunt. It will be streamed online from 12.45pm.
Westpac backs a carbon price as necessary to reduce "the price gap between cheap and dirty technologies and clean but usually more expensive processes".
In its submission to the parliamentary inquiry into 19 carbon price bills, the bank also said the household compensation - delivered through changes to income tax rates and welfare payments - could mildly expand stressed parts of the economy.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Compensation payments to be made in the second quarter next year, before the start of the carbon price scheme on July 1, total $1.5 billion - about 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product. "If it is mostly spent, it will provide a boost to consumer spending in that quarter," said the submission by Westpac emissions and environment director Emma Herd.The rushed parliamentary inquiry, which heard evidence in three cities this week and reports back next Friday, received wildly divergent evidence on the merits of laws the government says will transform the economy.
In evidence before the inquiry this week:
■The Business Council of Australia said the government had assumed all countries would meet their United Nations greenhouse targets, and had not included provisions if others failed to deliver.
■The Australian Coal Association said the scheme would cost the coalmining industry $16.9 billion over a decade. It said job growth would continue, but at a 27 per cent slower rate than without a carbon price.
■GE Energy Australia and New Zealand submitted research that found Australia badly trailed other major countries in "carbon productivity" - the level of economic output per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions. Its report said improvements in carbon productivity were likely to make it easier to develop the economy while cutting emissions.
The scheme before Parliament would start with a fixed price of $23 a tonne of carbon dioxide emissions before moving to a market-based emissions trading scheme in 2015.
It aims to cut at least 160 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2020.
It overcompensates lower-income households, which Westpac said generally spend more. About one in three households would be worse off, with average weekly bills estimated to increase by $9.90.
Westpac said the carbon price would raise only one-third of the revenue of the GST, and have a significantly smaller impact on living costs.
It suggested that not introducing a carbon price could lead to investment in carbon-intensive infrastructure, potentially creating "stranded assets" as the world moved to cut emissions. "Without a clear policy framework that matches investment horizons, Australian business has little incentive to invest now in newer, cleaner technologies.''
The Age and the Committee for Melbourne are hosting a debate on carbon pricing on Thursday, examining the question: what's really best for our nation's future? Speakers are Greens member for Melbourne Adam Bandt, parliamentary secretary for climate change and energy efficiency Mark Dreyfus and shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage Greg Hunt. It will be streamed online from 12.45pm.
Canadian Arctic loses nearly entire ice shelf
Two ice shelves that existed before Canada was settled by Europeans diminished significantly this northern summer, one nearly disappearing altogether, Canadian scientists say in newly published research.
The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say.
Floating icebergs that have broken free as a result pose a risk to offshore oil facilities and potentially to shipping lanes.
Luke Copland, an associate professor in the geography department at the University of Ottawa co-authored the research published on Carleton University's website.
He said the Serson Ice Shelf shrank from 205 square kilometers to two remnant sections five years ago, and was further diminished this past summer.
The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say.
Floating icebergs that have broken free as a result pose a risk to offshore oil facilities and potentially to shipping lanes.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The breaking apart of the ice shelves also reduces the environment that supports microbial life, and changes the look of Canada's coastline.Luke Copland, an associate professor in the geography department at the University of Ottawa co-authored the research published on Carleton University's website.
He said the Serson Ice Shelf shrank from 205 square kilometers to two remnant sections five years ago, and was further diminished this past summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)