There’s nothing quite like renewables: Natural gas production will not reduce future greenhouse gas emissions as hoped

andyextance:

Because burning natural gas produces less CO2 emissions in generating a certain amount of power than coal, it’s seen as a ‘bridging fuel’, a step to getting emissions down. However, a new study accounting for how tricky it is to close existing power plants suggests increasing use of natural gas is not reducing net emissions. Taken together with recent results showing that poor practice in fracking is contaminating groundwater, the case is growing in favour of pushing harder for renewables and – dare I say it – nuclear power to fight climate change. Read more about the latest findings on gas power in Jonathan Trinastic’s interesting post:

Originally posted on Goodnight Earth:

Appropriate and useful climate policy-making requires accurate and reliable data about the future.  Nowhere is this more important than when setting carbon emission standards and projecting percentages of each energy source to match energy needs (coal, natural gas, nuclear, renewables, etc.).  But projecting how emissions will change in the decades to come, say to meet the 2030 standards, is a tricky business.  In particular, natural gas has been touted as a ‘bridge’ to a low-carbon future with predictions that it would take over a share of energy production from coal and thereby reduce net emissions (natural gas has about a fourth of the greenhouse potential of coal, if you take away methane leaks in transportation pipes).

But is this really true?  Does the data back this up?  These are the key questions policymakers must know the answer to when deciding whether to promote natural gas expansion with subsidies, etc.  And it falls…

View original 798 more words

The hope behind climate change: adaptation strategies for coastal regions

andyextance:

If you focus too narrowly on the negatives of climate change too much you might give up hope, or be tempted into denial. But humanity is actually remarkably good at solving its problems, and that’s cause for optimism. Put into a good mood by the Labor Day holiday Jonathan Trinastic argues just that, inspired by a Nature Climate Change paper on the development of strategies responding to coastal impacts. It’s a nice summary, definitely worth a read.

Originally posted on Goodnight Earth:

Figure courtesy of aeccglobal.com

Figure courtesy of aeccglobal.com

Happy Labor Day!  In honor of a day traditionally taken off (except for retail employees, unfortunately) to enjoy grilling and relaxing outside, I thought I’d discuss something a bit more upbeat.  Climate change research can often be gloomy.  It is a necessary gloom in the form of research indicating severe dangers ahead – sea level rise, temperature increases, more severe storms, etc. – if we do not take action, and it does us no good to turn our heads even if this type of emotional denialism is tempting and easy.  But a little commentary came out in Nature Climate Change last week that provides some hope.  The article summarizes IPCC reports and describes a model approach to figure out how to respond to climate change and, in particular, sea level rise along the coasts.  This type of information is important both to determine how we can respond…

View original 800 more words

With climate change, uncertainty is no-one’s friend

This post has moved. Read it here.

For some reason, WordPress chose to publish this blog entry in July, meaning it appears out of sequence on the blog. I’ve now corrected the date, but that’s broken the original link. Please direct any annoyance at WordPress.

Unique and unnatural: modern warming from an historical viewpoint

A Roman altar with the Sun in its chariot on the left, and Vulcan, the god of fire and volcanoes on the right. The climate gods long favoured the Roman Empire, with wobbles in Earth's orbit credited for increasing the amount of solar energy falling on Earth at the time. Image copyright: Nick Thompson, used via Flickr Creative Commons License.

A Roman altar with the Sun in its chariot on the left, and Vulcan, the god of fire and volcanoes on the right. The climate gods long favoured the Roman Empire, with Earth’s orbital dance credited for increasing the amount of solar energy falling on Earth at the time. Image copyright: Nick Thompson, used via Flickr Creative Commons License.

Our climate has changed before. It’s something most of us realise and can agree on and, according to Skeptical Science, it’s currently the most used argument against human-caused warming. If such changes have happened naturally before, the argument goes, then surely today’s warming must also be natural. It’s an appealing idea, with an instinctively ‘right’ feel. Nature is so huge compared to us puny humans, how can we alter its course? The warming we’re measuring today must just be a natural fluctuation.

It’s such an appealing argument that at the beginning of the 20th century that’s just what many scientists thought – that humans couldn’t alter Earth’s climate. In the time since, our knowledge has come a long way. We’ve explored space, become able to build the electronics that are letting you read this, and climate science has likewise advanced and benefited from these advances.

So what do we know today that might convince the sceptical scientists of 115 years ago that we’re warming the planet? Recently, Richard Mallett, one of my Twitter friends who describes himself as sceptical about mainstream climate science, made a point that serves as an excellent test of our current knowledge:

Of the historical warmings he’s referring to, perhaps the least familiar is the Holocene, which is ironic, as the Holocene is now. It’s the current period of geological time that started at the end of the last ice age, 11,700 years ago. By 1900 scientists would have known the term, but they couldn’t explain why it wasn’t as icey as before.

Three variables of the Earth’s orbit—eccentricity, obliquity, and precession—affect global climate. Changes in eccentricity (the amount the orbit diverges from a perfect circle) vary the distance of Earth from the Sun. Changes in obliquity (tilt of Earth’s axis) vary the strength of the seasons. Precession (wobble in Earth’s axis) varies the timing of the seasons. For more complete descriptions, read Milutin Milankovitch: Orbital Variations Image credit: NASA/Robert Simmon.

Three variables of the Earth’s orbit—eccentricity, obliquity, and precession—affect global climate. Changes in eccentricity (the amount the orbit diverges from a perfect circle) vary the distance of Earth from the Sun. Changes in obliquity (tilt of Earth’s axis) vary the strength of the seasons. Precession (wobble in Earth’s axis) varies the timing of the seasons. For more complete descriptions, read Milutin Milankovitch: Orbital Variations. Image credit: NASA/Robert Simmon.

The explanation we have today comes thanks to the calculations Milutin Milanković worked out by hand between 1909 and 1941. Milutin showed that thanks to the gravitational pull of the Moon, Jupiter and Saturn, Earth’s orbit around the Sun varies in three ways. Over a cycle of roughly 96,000 years our path varies between more circular and more oval shapes. The other two ways come because Earth’s poles are slightly tilted relative to the Sun’s axis, which is why we have seasons. The angle of that tilt shifts over a roughly 41,000 year cycle. Earth also revolves around that tilted axis, like a spinning top does when it slows down, every 23,000 years.

Together these three cycles change how much of the Sun’s energy falls on and warms the Earth, in regular repeating patterns. Though that idea would be the subject of much controversy, by the 1960s data measured from cylinders of ancient ice and mud would resolve any doubt. The slow descent into ice ages and more abrupt warmings out of them – like the one that ushered in the Holocene – come from Earth’s shimmies in space. Read the rest of this entry »

The urgent voice who refused to be silenced on climate danger

  • This is part three of this profile. Read part one here and part two here.
In response to the revelations of his ongoing research, NASA scientist Jim Hansen has become increasingly active in campaigning to halt climate change over the past decade. Image credit: Greenpeace

In response to the revelations of his ongoing research, NASA scientist Jim Hansen has become increasingly active in campaigning to halt climate change over the past decade. Image credit: Greenpeace

By December 6, 2005, NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies’ (GISS) temperature record was already sending a clear message: worldwide, 2005 would likely be the warmest year so far. For GISS director Jim Hansen, speaking to the annual American Geophysical Union conference, arguably the world’s largest environmental research meeting, it seemed fair to reveal. For several listening journalists it was newsworthy enough for them to cover Jim’s talk. But it would anger some of Jim’s colleagues at NASA headquarters enough to try to stop him talking to the media. In the process they’d drag him outside the world of pure research he was most comfortable in. “The undue influence of special interests and government greenwash pose formidable barriers to a well-informed public,” Jim would later write about the situation. “Without a well-informed public, humanity itself and all species on the planet are threatened.”

The comments came during a lecture in honour of Dave Keeling, the CO2 tracking pioneer, who’d died of a heart attack in June that year. Soothing Jim’s hesitation, Dave’s son Ralph stressed he was continuing the work of his father, who had even been discussing one of Jim’s papers minutes before his death. And so Jim had brought together evidence showing that Earth’s climate was nearing a ‘tipping point’ beyond which it will be impossible to avoid dangerous changes. However, warming from 2000 onwards might still be kept below the 1°C level that Jim at that time considered hazardous if CO2 levels in the air were held at about 450 parts per million (ppm). Emissions of other greenhouse gases would also need to be significantly reduced. The message was clear: how we get our energy would must change, mainly by shifting away from coal and the vast volumes of CO2 burning it produces.

NASA headquarters was already reviewing all publicity on climate change research, but the latest coverage would force it into even more severe action. The following week it laid out new restrictions on Jim’s ability to comment publicly, and the global GISS temperature record was temporarily taken off the internet. Prominent amongst those setting the new conditions was NASA’s new head of public affairs, appointed by George Bush’s administration, David Mould. His previous jobs included a senior media relations role at the Southern Company of Atlanta, the second largest holding company of coal-burning power stations in the US. Only one company had donated more to the Republican Party than the Southern Company during George Bush’s 2000 election campaign: Enron. Read the rest of this entry »

The underprepared figurehead that led climate science from calculation to negotiation

Bert Bolin discussing weather maps in Stockholm circa 1955. Image copyright Tellus B, used via Creative Commons license, see Rodhe paper referenced below.

Bert Bolin discussing weather maps in Stockholm circa 1955. Image copyright Tellus B, used via Creative Commons license, see Rodhe paper referenced below.

In 1957, at the young age of 32 and just one year after completing his PhD, Bert Bolin officially gained a new skill: leadership. Taking over the International Meteorological Institute (IMI) in Stockholm, Sweden, after his mentor Carl-Gustaf Rossby’s sudden death must have been a huge shock. But Bert gained responsibility after responsibility over the next 40 years, ultimately becoming the first chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). And though it’s hard to beat setting up a Nobel-prize winning organisation, Bert was not just an administrator – his research helped build the foundations of climate science too.

Growing up in Nyköping, south of Stockholm, Bert recorded the weather with encouragement from a schoolteacher father who had studied meteorology at university. After the pair met the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute’s deputy director when Bert was 17, he moved north to study maths, physics and meteorology at the University of Uppsala. Immediately after graduating in 1946 he went to Stockholm to do military service, where he first saw Carl-Gustaf giving a series of lectures.

By that time Carl-Gustaf had been living in the US for 21 years, pioneering mathematical and physical analysis of the atmosphere, becoming the country’s foremost meteorologist. He had set up meteorology departments at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1930s, and the University of Chicago, Illinois, in the 1940s. He had also modernised the US Weather bureau and by 1946 wanted to help improve meteorology’s status in his native Sweden. As Carl-Gustaf’s renowned organisational prowess gradually pulled together the IMI, Bert came to study with him, gaining his Master’s degree in 1950.

Carl-Gustaf was collaborating with leading scientists of his time, and through some of these links Bert spent a year working in the US after his Master’s. Perhaps the most notable such relationship was with John von Neumann at Princeton University in New Jersey, who had helped develop the hydrogen bomb. John and his team had made history using arguably the world’s first computer, ENIAC, to predict weather mathematically. But when errors emerged, Carl-Gustaf asked Bert to help analyse why, using his understanding of the atmosphere to prevent such forecasts being ‘mathematical fantasy’. Read the rest of this entry »

Enhanced fingerprinting strengthens evidence for human warming role

Microwave sounding units, like the AMSU units on the Aqua satellite, shown here, can be used to take temperature measurements from different layers in the atmosphere. Ben Santer and his colleagues use this information to find a 'fingerprint' of human impact on recent climate changes. Credit: NASA

Microwave sounding units, like the AMSU units on the Aqua satellite, shown here, can be used to take temperature measurements from different layers in the atmosphere. Ben Santer and his colleagues use this information to find a ‘fingerprint’ of human impact on recent climate changes. Credit: NASA

We have left a clear climate change ‘fingerprint’ in the atmosphere, through CO2 emissions that have made air near the Earth’s surface warmer and caused cooling higher up. That’s according to Ben Santer from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California, who started studying this fingerprint in the mid-1990s, and his expert team. They have strengthened the case by comparing satellite-recorded temperature data against the latest climate models including natural variations within Earth’s climate system, and from the sun and volcanic eruptions. Ben hopes that in the process their results will finally answer ill-tempered criticism his earlier work attracted, and lingering doubts over what causes global warming.

“There are folks out there even today that posit that the entire observed surface warming since 1950 is due to a slight uptick in the Sun’s energy output,” Ben told me. “That’s a testable hypothesis.  In this paper we look at whether changes in the sun plausibly explain the observed changes that we’ve monitored from space since 1979. The very clear answer is that they cannot. Natural influences alone, the sun, volcanoes, internal variability, either individually or in combination, cannot explain this very distinctive pattern of warming.”

That pattern emerged when scientists in the 1960s did some of the first computer modelling experiments looking at what would happen on an Earth with higher CO2 levels in the air. “They got back this very curious warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling of the upper levels of the atmosphere,” Ben explained. The effect happens because most of the gas molecules in the atmosphere, including CO2, sit relatively near to Earth’s surface. CO2’s greenhouse effect lets heat energy from the Sun reach the Earth, but interrupts some of it getting back to the upper atmosphere and outer space. Adding more CO2 by burning fossil fuels therefore warms the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, and cools the stratosphere, 6-30 miles above the Earth’s surface.  Read the rest of this entry »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 191 other followers