Tag Archives: climate-central

Meteorologists have a new strategy for bringing climate change down to earth

by Niki95Guqssevo Posted on March 15, 2018

This story was originally published by Ensia. 

KOLR10 News TV meteorologist Elisa Raffa wanted to tell her viewers about climate change, so she started with beer.

“Beer is mostly water, right?” the Springfield Missouri, reporter says. “One of our local breweries gets the water they use from a nearby lake. Well, because temperatures are going up there has been an algae bloom in the lake. It’s not a dangerous bloom — but it impacts the taste of the water and, of course, the beer.”

Mother’s Brewing Company also buys produce like peaches and cucumbers from local farmers, Raffa says. Those fresh fruits and veggies give brews like the Sunshine Chugsuckle and the Uncanny their signature flavor. But between increasingly violent hail storms and early blooms on the peach trees that then get hit with late freezes, that produce is in trouble. Mother’s and other Missouri brewers may have to turn to imported, frozen products. “And that not only impacts taste, it harms the local economy,” Raffa says.

Raffa’s 2017 beer story was a short segment on the evening newscast. But it marks a shift. From heatwaves and extreme rainfall to drought and flooding, climate change is becoming hard to ignore. To help their viewers understand what is happening around them, TV meteorologists are increasingly taking the lead in educating the public as to how climate change affects their lives.

For years, TV meteorologists were hesitant to talk about climate change. Climatological views — the long-term trends and patterns that influence weather — were not part of their education. Their time on air is limited. Some stations may discourage climate change talk. Many meteorologists simply feel it isn’t their responsibility. And some are concerned about how it might affect their ratings and job security.

“Audiences trust their local meteorologists,” says Mike Nelson, chief meteorologist at Denver7, an ABC affiliate in Colorado. “Our jobs depend on that trust. Meteorologists understand this, and some tend to stay away from controversial subjects.”

But that won’t do anymore, says Nelson. “We are as close to a scientist as most Americans will ever get. People invite us into their living rooms. We have a responsibility to educate them on the facts.”

In 2010, several meteorologists joined Climate Central, George Mason and Yale universities, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the American Meteorological Society in a pilot project to explore how broadcast meteorologists could better communicate climate change. Two years later, Climate Central launched Climate Matters as a full-time, national program to help meteorologists talk about climate change in and with their communities.

“We need more people connecting the dots about how climate change is already affecting people and will continue to do so in the future,” says Bernadette Woods Placky, Climate Central chief meteorologist and director of Climate Matters. By linking local impacts to larger changes, Climate Matters aims to empower people to prepare for impacts like heatwaves, flooding, elevated food prices, and health situations. “We are a resource to help meteorologists tell their local story,” says Woods Placky.

Today, Climate Matters supplies webinars to help meteorologists understand topics such as climate models, health impacts, and extreme precipitation events. It provides data for individual markets, such as how viewers think about climate change. It also offers weekly communication packages containing location-specific climate analyses and visuals as well as workshops offering a deeper dive into the science, impacts, and solutions to climate change.

“We meteorologists need to show people global climate change and what it means to them,” says 42-year broadcast veteran Jim Gandy, chief meteorologist at News19 in Columbia, South Carolina, and a founding member of Climate Matters.

To bring that message home, Gandy produced a segment for the nightly newscast based on a 2006 study showing that increased carbon dioxide helps poison ivy spread and, crucially, makes it more toxic. “Poison ivy toxicity has doubled since the 1950s,” Gandy says. And it will double again by the end of the century according to the study, according to Gandy. This means that more people will be allergic to poison ivy and more people are expected to end up in the emergency room.

“If we don’t start talking about climate change now, how are we going to explain to people what they are seeing?” says Gandy. He has also enlightened his viewers about the impacts on local vegetable prices due to the California drought and talked about how the increased heat South Carolina is seeing affects gardening.

Each broadcast meteorologist has to find a way to bring the story of climate change down to the local level and figure out what matters to their viewers, say Woods Placky and Gandy.

In Arizona, Amber Sullins, five-time Emmy Award WinningABC15chief meteorologist, builds her climate change stories and information with her key demographic in mind: women aged 25 to 54. “I leave out things people can’t connect with like sea ice,” she says. “Instead, I focus on what my viewers care about: their children, their finances.”

Sullins also incorporates past data on frequency of fires or heatwaves into her daily forecast. “It helps to provide perspective,” she says. “ I also talk about projections so people know where we are going.”

Raffa avoids using the words “climate change.” Experience has taught her that the term alienates people.

Chief meteorologist Jorge Torres at KOB 4 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, agrees with this approach. “I’m just showing what’s going on. Just science and data,” he says. “I show my viewers that climate change is happening without ramming it down people’s throats or laying blame.”

Torres uses graphs and charts supplied by Climate Matters to communicate trends such as the steady decrease in snowpack in New Mexico mountains since 1980 and the increase in record-breaking high temperatures. Torres also uses social media to share the facts on climate change, tweeting his charts and graphs and engaging with his followers. He speaks regularly to schools, college groups, ski clubs, retirement groups, and others to get the message across.

“I just give them the hard data,” says. “It speaks for itself.”

Examples of how to tell the local story vary widely. Meteorologist Chelsea Ingram atKYW CBS 3 in Philadelphia talked about the fate of the Philadelphia airport as sea levels rise. In Detroit, Paul Gross, meteorologist at WDIV-TV, regularly explains to his viewers how increased evaporation from a warmer atmosphere in turn results in some of the massive snows experienced in his region the past few years.

Of course, not everyone is on board with communicating climate change from the evening news broadcast. Arecent survey showedthat 38 percent of broadcast meteorologists either don’t believe in climate change or don’t believe that it is human-caused. But of the estimated 2,200 meteorologists around the country, about 500 are working with Climate Matters to tell the local stories of climate change. “It has been revolutionary,” says Woods Placky. “We’ve got a long way to go, but we are reaching a tipping point.”

“I’ve had very little blowback,” says New Mexico’s Torres. “In fact I’ve heard more viewers tell me I need to talk about climate change more often.” Other meteorologists have had similar results. The feedback has been so positive, in fact, that Climate Matters is looking to expand to the newsroom.

“I got into meteorology because I loved learning how weather impacts me beyond needing an umbrella,” says Raffa. “My advice is to find your niche. Find your own story and your own way to do it. Understand how your viewers feel and talk to them.”

Original post – 

Meteorologists have a new strategy for bringing climate change down to earth

Posted in alo, Anchor, Down To Earth, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meteorologists have a new strategy for bringing climate change down to earth

Is Hurricane Matthew the New Normal?

by AbrahamVillegas Posted on October 7, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hurricane Matthew, which is currently menacing the United States after causing more than 800 deaths in Haiti, has focused the world’s attention on the growing threat posed by flooding and extreme storms. Here’s what you need to know about how climate change could make these natural disasters even worse.

Severe weather costs billions

So far in 2016, there have been a total of 12 floods and severe storms in the United States that have caused more than $1 billion in losses each, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The losses cover damage to property and infrastructure, interruptions to business operations such as store closings, and agricultural damage to crops and livestock.

Four of those catastrophic floods—two in Louisiana and one each in Texas and West Virginia—have occurred inland as a result of heavy rain. That’s double the previous record, which dates back to 1980. The pattern is clear: “Since 1991, the amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events has been significantly above average,” according to the National Climate Assessment, released in 2014.

Why the increase? As explained in the assessment, warmer temperatures enable the air to hold more water vapor. This extra vapor is then ready to be picked up and unleashed by the next storm system.

National Climate Assessment

As the Environmental Protection Agency states, however, the trend is by no means a universal one. As some parts of the country—such as the Midwest, Northeast, and Great Plains—see increased flooding, other regions, like the Southwest, have seen a decrease.

Sea levels are rising, and coasts are threatened

Global sea levels have risen 8 inches since 1880, according to a Climate Central analysis, and the trend shows no signs of slowing down. The culprit? Human activity. Climate Central’s report shows that along the coasts, two-thirds of flood days are now caused by human impact.

In addition to flooding from heavy rainfall, rising seas caused by melting ice sheets and warming water (which takes up more space than cooler water) are already causing coastal flooding in places such as Norfolk, Virginia—even on days without rain, as the New York Times explains. This type of flooding, termed “sunny-day flooding,” can happen at high tide and when winds are strong enough to cause the water to flow onto streets, the Times notes.

Human activity causes two-thirds of coastal flood days. Climate Central

Hurricanes could get worse

Climate models cited by the National Climate Assessment also predict an increase in the number of powerful category 4 (wind speeds above 130 miles per hour) and category 5 hurricanes (wind speeds above 155 miles per hour) by late this century. Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005, was upgraded to a category 5 at its most dangerous peak before striking Louisiana as a category 3 storm. It displaced more than 400,000 people, with some estimates topping 1 million. More than a decade later, the exact number of people killed by the storm is still unknown.

Matthew made landfall in Haiti as a category 4 but has been reduced to a category 3 as it pummels Florida. (UPDATE: Matthew has now been downgraded to a category 2 storm.) Yesterday, President Barack Obama declared states of emergency in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, and Florida’s governor, Rick Scott, warned, “This storm will kill you.” Matthew spent more time as a category 4 or 5 storm than any other hurricane on record in the eastern Caribbean, said Adam Smith, a scientist at NOAA.

The warmer surface temperature of the water in the Caribbean Sea has contributed to Matthew’s “resilience and power,” Smith added in an email to Mother Jones.

Storm surge, or the water pushed onto land by high winds, has been another contributing factor to Matthew’s danger. It reached a peak of four feet near Cape Canaveral, Florida, and is predicted to reach as much as six to nine feet in parts of Florida and South Carolina if the surge coincides with high tide.

In fact, storm surge is one of the most dangerous effects of a hurricane. “Along the coast, storm surge is often the greatest threat to life and property from a hurricane,” according to the National Hurricane Center.

And the threat could grow. A study released in 2013 showed that warming temperatures could cause a tenfold increase in extreme storm surges in the next few decades.

“Climate change makes worse many of our weather extremes than they would have been naturally,” Smith said.

View this article – 

Is Hurricane Matthew the New Normal?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Hurricane Matthew the New Normal?

You can wave goodbye to this global warming goal

by BenitoVYNY Posted on April 20, 2016

You can wave goodbye to this global warming goal

By on Apr 20, 2016comments

Cross-posted from

Climate CentralShare

Global leaders are meeting in New York this week to sign the Paris climate agreement. One of the expressed purposes of the document is to limit warming to “well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C.”

A Climate Central analysis shows that the world will have to dramatically accelerate emissions reductions if it wants to meet that goal. The average global temperature change for the first three months of 2016 was 1.48 degrees C, essentially equaling the 1.5 degrees C warming threshold agreed to by COP 21 negotiators in Paris last December.

February exceeded the 1.5 degrees C target at 1.55 degrees C, marking the first time the global average temperature has surpassed the sobering milestone in any month. March followed suit checking in at 1.5 degrees C. January’s mark of 1.4 degrees C, put the global average temperature change from early industrial levels for the first three months of 2016 at 1.48 degrees C.

Climate Central

Climate Central scientists and statisticians made these calculations based on an average of global temperature data reported by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But rather than using the baselines those agencies employ, Climate Central compared 2016’s temperature anomalies to an 1881-1910 average temperature baseline, the earliest date for which global temperature data are considered reliable. NASA reports global temperature change in reference to a 1951-1980 climate baseline, and NOAA reports the anomaly in reference to a 20th century average temperature.

NASA’s data alone showed a February temperature anomaly of 1.63 degrees C above early industrial levels with March at 1.54 degrees C.

Calculating a baseline closer to the pre-industrial era provides a useful measure of global temperature for policymakers and the public to better track how successful the world’s efforts are in keeping global warming below agreed-upon thresholds.

A similar adjustment can be applied to some of the temperature change projections in the most recent IPCC report.

The IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 Report contains projections of future global surface temperature change according to several scenarios of future socio-economic development, most of which are presented using a baseline of 1986 to 2005. The IPCC chose this baseline in order to provide its readers a more immediate base of comparison, the climate of the present world, which people are familiar with. But these representations may suggest that the Paris goals are easier to reach than is true.

The IPCC’s presentation of these scenarios was not designed to inform the discussion about warming limits (e.g., 1.5 degrees C, 2 degrees C goals of the Paris COP21 agreements). But the Panel does provide a way to make its projections of future warming consistent with discussions about targets.

IPCC estimates, using the best and longest record available, show that the difference between the 1986-2005 global average temperature value used in most of the Panel’s projections, and pre-industrial global average temperature, is 0.61 degrees C (0.55-0.67). Neglecting 0.61 degrees C warming is not trivial, and makes a significant difference for the assessment of the goals established in Paris. In fact, 0.61 degrees C amounts to about half the warming already experienced thus far.

To capture this warming and display the IPCC warming time series relative to the pre-industrial period, Climate Central adjusted a well known IPCC projection (SPM7(a)) to reflect a 1880-1910 baseline. This adjustment has a significant effect on the dates at which the 1.5 and 2 degrees C thresholds are crossed, moving them up by about 15-20 years.

If current emissions trends continue (RCP8.5) we could cross the 1.5 degrees C threshold in 10 to 15 years, somewhere between the years 2025-2030, compared to 2045-2050 when a 1985-2005 baseline is used.

The dramatic global hot streak that kicked off 2016 doesn’t mean the world has already failed to meet the goals in the Paris agreement. Three months do not make a year, and it is unlikely that 2016 will exceed the 1881-1910 climate-normal by 1.5 degrees C. This year is also in the wake of a strong El Niño, when higher-than-average temperatures would be expected.

And of course, exceeding the 1.5 degrees C threshold for even an entire year would not mean that global temperatures had in fact risen to that point, never (at least within our lifetime) to drop back below it as it’s too short of a time frame to make that determination.

But the hot start for 2016 is a notable symbolic milestone. The day the world first crossed the 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold for atmospheric carbon dioxide heralded a future of ever increasing carbon dioxide. So too, do the first three months of 2016 send a clear signal of where our world is headed and how fast we are headed there if drastic actions to reduce carbon emissions are not taken immediately.

Background

On Dec. 12, 2015, the 21st Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change approved the Paris Agreement committing 195 nations of the world to “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C.” The pact commits the world to adopt nationally determined policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions in accord with those goals.

The 2 degrees C goal represents a temperature increase from a pre-industrial baseline that scientists believe will maintain the relatively stable climate conditions that humans and other species have adapted to over the previous 12,000 years. It will also minimize some of the worst impacts of climate change: drought, heat waves, heavy rain and flooding, and sea-level rise. Limiting the global surface temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C would lessen these impacts even further.

1.5 and 2 degrees C are not hard and fast limits beyond which disaster is imminent, but they are now the milestones by which the world measures all progress toward slowing global warming. And yet it is surprisingly difficult to find objective measures that answer the question, where are we today on the path toward meeting the 1.5 or 2 degrees C goals?

Every month NOAA and NASA update their global surface temperature change analysis, using data from the Global Historical Climate Network, and methods validated in the peer-reviewed literature (Hansen et al. 2010; NCDC). The monthly updates are posted on their websites, and made available to the public along with the underlying data and assumptions that go into their calculations.

These calculations are enormously useful for understanding the magnitude and pace of global warming. In fact, they are the bedrock measurements validating the fact that our planet is warming at all.

But none present their results in comparison to a pre-industrial climate normal.

Methods and Results

The NASA and NOAA monthly updates are presented as anomalies, or as the deviation from a baseline climate normal, calculated as an average of a 30-year reference period, or the 20th century average; they do not represent an absolute temperature increase from a specific date. NASA presents their results in reference to a 1951 to 1980 average temperature, NOAA in reference to a 20th century average temperature.

The NASA results, calculated by Goddard Institute for Space Studies, are published monthly on the NASA/GISS website (GISTEMP). NOAA methods and monthly updates are published via the National Centers for Environmental Information here.

Climate Central used data from NASA and NOAA to create an 1881 to 1910 climate normal for the months of January, February, and March. We then compared the reported monthly 2016 anomaly for each of these months to this “early-industrial” baseline reference period.  These anomalies were then averaged to produce a mean monthly NASA/NOAA anomaly for each month. The results are presented below.

The NASA anomaly is considerably higher than the anomaly reported by NOAA. This reflects the fact the NASA’s calculations are tuned to account for temperature changes at the poles, where there are far fewer monitoring stations. NOAA relies only on historical station data and makes no adjustment to account for sparse records at the poles, where warming has been more rapid relative to non-polar regions.

Climate Central

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link – 

You can wave goodbye to this global warming goal

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on You can wave goodbye to this global warming goal

Here’s How Many Ridiculously Hot Days Your City Will Have in the Future

by LeesaClinton Posted on August 7, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Have you felt unbearably hot this summer, and wondered to yourself, is this what global warming feels like?

Chances are that someone living almost 90 years from now would consider you a big whiner. Over at Climate Central, a new interactive tool shows how often your city might suffer through temperatures above either 90 degrees, 100 degrees, or 110 degrees by the year 2050 and the year 2100. It includes projections for 87 cities under four different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, and it’s terrifying. You can try it out below:

Thus, while Washington, DC, currently sees only about one day per year over 100 degrees, that is projected to go up to eight days by 2050 and to 24 days by 2100 under the worst emissions scenario—which is the pathway we’re currently on.

The only good news: There are three other emissions scenarios accessible in the interactive that aren’t as bad. And our current decisions just might get us off the scorchingly hot path, and onto something more tolerable.

Credit:  

Here’s How Many Ridiculously Hot Days Your City Will Have in the Future

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s How Many Ridiculously Hot Days Your City Will Have in the Future

A Risk Analyst Explains Why Climate Change Risk Misperception Doesn’t Necessarily Matter

by Luz67Wegjv Posted on April 16, 2014

green4us

Codex: Astra Militarum (eBook Edition) – Games Workshop

Codex: Astra Militarum The Astra Militarum are the mighty Hammer of the Emperor, an army so vast that it has never been fully recorded by the scribes of the Administratum. Drawn from a million worlds, its men and women are the thin line between Humanity and the void. On hundreds of thousands of warzones across the galaxy the armies of the Astra Militarum hol

iTunes Store
The One-Minute Cleaner Plain & Simple – Donna Smallin

Clean smarter, not harder! That’s Donna Smallin’s motto, and now she shows readers how to do it in just minutes a day. The One-Minute Cleaner Plain & Simple is the perfect handbook for busy people who might never find the time for a top-to-bottom household scrub but do want to keep their homes clean and clutter-free. Room by room, challeng

iTunes Store
Codex: Astra Militarum (Enhanced Edition) – Games Workshop

The Astra Militarum are the mighty Hammer of the Emperor, an army so vast that it has never been fully recorded by the scribes of the Administratum. Drawn from a million worlds, its men and women are the thin line between Humanity and the void. On hundreds of thousands of warzones across the galaxy the armies of the Astra Militarum hold back the advance of a

iTunes Store
The Art of Raising a Puppy (Revised Edition) – Monks of New Skete

For more than thirty years the Monks of New Skete have been among America’s most trusted authorities on dog training, canine behavior, and the animal/human bond. In their two now-classic bestsellers, How to be Your Dog’s Best Friend and The Art of Raising a Puppy, the Monks draw on their experience as long-time breeders of German shepherds and as t

iTunes Store
Beautiful No-Mow Yards – Evelyn Hadden

What has your perfect green lawn done for you lately? Is it really worth the time, effort, and resources you lavish on it? Armed with encouragement, inspiration, and cutting-edge advice from award-winning author Evelyn Hadden, you can liberate yourself at last! In this ultimate guide to rethinking your yard, Hadden showcases dozens of inspiring, eco-friendly

iTunes Store
Planting the Dry Shade Garden – Graham Rice

In this book you’ll learn how to prune selectively to admit more light and how to amend soil to increase its moisture retention. You’ll also learn about more than 130 plants that accept reduced light and moisture levels-long-blooming woodland gems like epimediums and hellebores, and even lush foliage plants like evergreen ferns and hardy gingers, s

iTunes Store
The Complete Compost Gardening Guide – Deborah L. Martin & Barbara Pleasant

Barbara Pleasant and Deborah L. Martin turn the compost bin upside down with their liberating system of keeping compost heaps right in the garden, rather than in some dark corner behind the garage. The compost and the plants live together from the beginning in a nourishing, organic environment. The authors’ bountiful, compost-rich gardens require less d

iTunes Store
White Dwarf Issue 11: 12 April 2014 – White Dwarf

This issue, the Bullgryns smash into Warhammer 40,000 along with their Ogryn counterparts and the infamous bodyguard Nork Deddog, complete with painting guides in Paint Splatter. We also take the Astra Militarum out for a Battle Report: who will win, humanity’s finest defenders or the marauding Orks? About this Series: White Dwarf is Games Workshop

iTunes Store
50 Beautiful Deer-Resistant Plants – Ruth Rogers Clausen

Keeping your beautiful garden safe from deer is as simple as choosing the right plants. In 50 Beautiful Deer-Resistant Plants , gardening expert Ruth Rogers Clausen introduces the most versatile and drool-worthy options: white snowdrops that bloom in the spring; shade-loving, electric gold hakone grass; long-blooming Texas sage in vibrant reds, peaches, and

iTunes Store
The Dog Listener: Learning the Language of your Best Friend – Jan Fennell

You’ve heard of the Horse Whisperer – now meet the woman who uses similar methods to train dogs. Jan Fennell’s remarkable gifts have earned her the nickname “the dog listener”. Her unique understanding of the canine world and its instinctive language has enabled her to bring even the most desperate and delinquent of dogs to heel. This easy-to-follow guide to

iTunes Store

Continued here: 

A Risk Analyst Explains Why Climate Change Risk Misperception Doesn’t Necessarily Matter

Posted in alo, alternative energy, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, Garden Safe, GE, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, organic, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Risk Analyst Explains Why Climate Change Risk Misperception Doesn’t Necessarily Matter

4 Climate Myths You’ll Hear This Week

by Myrna Posted on September 26, 2013

‘Tis the season of climate denial. Be prepared.<!–more–> Your uncle, yelling at you about how global warming has stopped Jinga/Shutterstock and Jessica Robertson/USGS Leading into Friday’s upcoming release of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, climate skeptics have gone into overdrive. They’re doing anything they can to undermine public acceptance of the dangers posed by global warming, which, at least according to a leaked draft of the report, is “extremely likely” (or, 95 percent certain) to be caused by human activities. Unfortunately, much of this glut of misinformation is likely to make its way to people in your life—whether it’s your congressman, your favorite talk radio host, or even your family. Heck, this stuff might even pop up in a heated conversation over your dinner table with your Uncle Larry (who always seems to be dying to argue about climate change). To prepare you, here’s the truth about four myths you’re likely to hear about climate science and the IPCC report: Myth 1: Global warming has stopped. Perhaps the most prominent attack on climate science right now centers on the claim that global warming is “slowing down,” sometimes followed by insinuations that scientists don’t understand why this is happening, or even that they have tried to cover it up. On occasion, this attack gets stretched into the assertion that global warming has stopped entirely over the past decade and a half, or even is just plain “over.” Possibly the strongest articulation yet of the meme came from Republican Rep. David McKinley of West Virginia, who said last week that there has been “almost no increase in temperature” in the last 40 years. Globally averaged surface temperatures, by decade (includes combined land and sea surface temperatures) World Meteorological Organization But that’s just incorrect, as the figure above from the World Meteorological Organization, marking global average temperatures by decade, clearly shows. Global warming hasn’t stopped at all. What’s actually happening is that the rate of surface warming has slowed somewhat over the past decade or more, probably because more heat has gone into the planet’s oceans. In other words, the excess heat is still here in the Earth system; it’s just not where we typically measure it. “Global warming is alive and well,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explained to me last month, “but about 30 percent of the heat is going deeper into the ocean.” At the same time, an increase in volcanic eruptions also seems to have generated a slight and temporary cooling influence that’s offsetting some of the warming effect of carbon dioxide, by reflecting some sunlight away from the planet. But none of this is a reason not to worry about climate change. Climate researchers say it’s likely that this temporary global warming slowdown will soon subside and warming will snap back, perhaps stronger than before. Myth 2: Arctic sea ice is recovering. One of the most dramatic indicators of global warming was last summer’s record low in the extent of Arctic sea ice—a drop that was 18 percent below the previous low in 2007. Since nothing about global warming suggests that you break a new record every successive year, it’s not surprising that the Arctic sea ice melt was less dramatic this year. This year’s seasonal low in ice extent was merely the sixth-lowest level on record. Somehow, global warming skeptics found a way to call this good news. In particular, the Mail on Sunday in the United Kingdom ran an article hailing a “rebound” in sea ice and pronouncing that “And now it’s global cooling!” Because 2013 did not beat 2012′s record, and was only the sixth-lowest sea ice extent on record, skeptics celebrated an “increase of 60 percent.” Actually, here’s what’s happening to Arctic sea ice when you include, er, context: The decline in Arctic sea ice extent. National Snow and Ice Data Center. No wonder political psychologists have recently found that ideology can wreck your ability to do math. For a thorough debunking of sea ice misinformation, see this video with astronomer and reality-based blogger extraordinaire, Phil Plait. Myth 3: Growing Antarctic ice undermines global-warming concerns. Lately skeptics have also been drawing attention Antarctic sea ice, which just hit a 35-year record high. Rush Limbaugh actually appears to have gotten confused over this, claiming recently on his show that Arctic ice was at a record extent, before correcting himself and realizing that he meant Antarctica—the place with, you know, the penguins rather the polar bears. Visualization of Antarctic temperature changes. NASA Earth Observatory That Antarctic sea ice has been growing of late is not in dispute, but again, this is no refutation of global warming. Scientists are currently trying to figure out why Antarctic sea ice is increasing, and one theory points to stronger winds due to a stronger polar vortex—a phenomenon apparently capable of overcoming a general warming of the Southern Ocean. Overall, it is important to understand that the Antarctic is very different from the Arctic. As Michael Lemonick of Climate Central puts it: The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean. In the Arctic, moreover, you’ve got sea ice decreasing in the summer; at the opposite pole, you’ve got sea ice increasing in the winter. It’s not just an apples-and-oranges comparison: it’s more like comparing apple pie with orange juice. The IPCC’s leaked draft report says scientists have “low confidence” in their understanding of what’s going on with Antarctic sea ice. It also predicts, with “low confidence,” that this ice too will decline by the end of the century. In other words: Antarctica is complicated, remote, and little understood. All of which, incidentally, highlights why you should trust scientists on climate change: They know what they don’t know and are honest about it, as the Antarctica case shows. That’s why, when they express 95 percent confidence that humans are driving global warming (in the same report that confesses a relative lack of understanding of what’s happening with Antarctic sea ice), it is worth paying attention. Myth 4: Global warming won’t be a big deal; it might even be good for you. As usual, there are more- and less-nuanced climate skeptics. Among the former, one of the most popular arguments is that global warming won’t be as bad as previously thought. One recent version of this argument was articulated by British science writer Matt Ridley, who argued in the Wall Street Journal that the leaked IPCC report “dials back the alarm” on global warming. Similarly, climate change contrarian Bjorn Lomborg is now arguing that the new report will support a “moderate climate change message,” rendering “alarmist scenarios ever more implausible.” All of this is pretty hard to believe, given that IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has recently stated that when it comes to the climate issue, it’s “five minutes before midnight.” But let’s consider the arguments for a more modest global warming, starting with Ridley’s. Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist (2010), thinks global warming will be on the low end. Wikimedia Commons Ridley draws our attention to a small change to the low end scientific estimate of how sensitive the climate is likely to be to a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions. In 2007, the IPCC put the low end of this range at 2 degrees Celsius; now—at least according to the leaked draft report—it is 1.5 degrees. The upper end of the range has not changed: It is 4.5 degrees Celsius. Does this 0.5-degree shift matter? Although the rosiest scenario may have gotten slightly rosier, there’s no reason to assume we’ll be so lucky, or that global warming will be mild. Rebutting Ridley in the Wall Street Journal letters section, climate scientist John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas put it like this: Basically, he is arguing that the Earth may undergo a slow simmer, whereas most scientists think it will be a faster boil. Either way, the consequences are enormous. And there’s another problem with Ridley’s outlook. Much of his op-ed focused on how much warming we’ll see in the next 70 years or so—in fact, he argues that by 2083, the “benefits of climate change” may “still outweigh the harm.” Abraham counters that “we are already seeing economic and ecological damage, including increased precipitation in some regions, with consequent flooding, more severe drought in other regions, increased storms, heat waves and rising sea levels.” In any case, the IPCC draft report plainly says that global warming will continue well past the year 2100. That’s only the beginning. The draft report explains that we can expect some of the carbon that we’ve emitted to stay in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years and for warming to continue for “several centuries.” The report implies that over the long term, sea levels could eventually rise on the order 5 to 10 meters (other scientists have placed ithigher still). Lomborg, for his part, acknowledges that global warming is a “problem,” just a modest one. “The IPCC’s predictions do not support alarmist predictions of global temperature rise that are often in the order of 5ºC (9ºF) and 1-2 meters (3-6) feet of sea level rise—not to mention Al Gore’s 6 meters (20 feet),” he claims. Yet much of this may depend on your time frame, as we’ve seen. The upshot is that nobody can be absolutely certain which scenario for global warming in the 21st century will actually be realized. The question is, and has always been, about managing risks—risks not just for us, but risks to our children, grandchildren, and untold future generations if we leave them a badly damaged planet. Ridley and Lomborg could be right that global warming will still be relatively mild after 70 years, and will stay on the low end. But can we really take that chance? Link:  4 Climate Myths You’ll Hear This Week ; ;Related ArticlesWTF is the IPCC?WATCH: What’s Really Going on With Arctic Sea Ice?Watch: Congressman Makes “Completely Wrong” Claim About Temperature ;

Read the article:  

4 Climate Myths You’ll Hear This Week

Posted in alo, Casio, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, LAI, Monterey, ONA, organic, organic gardening, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 4 Climate Myths You’ll Hear This Week

Dot Earth Blog: A Closer Look at That ‘North Pole Lake’

by Myrna Posted on July 27, 2013

A flurry of Web discussion of a “North Pole lake” misses some important points. See the original article here – Dot Earth Blog: A Closer Look at That ‘North Pole Lake’ Related Articles Dot Earth Blog: Arctic Methane Credibility Bomb A Closer Look at That ‘North Pole Lake’ On Rooftops, a Rival for Utilities

Visit source:  

Dot Earth Blog: A Closer Look at That ‘North Pole Lake’

Posted in Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dot Earth Blog: A Closer Look at That ‘North Pole Lake’

Climate change could bring more hurricanes

by pawel Posted on July 9, 2013

Climate change could bring more hurricanes

By John Upton

NASA Goddard

Climate scientists have long predicted that cyclones and hurricanes would become more destructive as the climate changes, but that the number of such storms each year would decrease, or perhaps remain constant.

That notion was challenged Monday by Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Emanuel’s computer models foresee stronger cyclones and hurricanes, in line with previous research, but they also foresee a growing number of the storms each year as warming continues.

The Carbon Brief explained Emanuel’s research:

Six global scale climate models were used to produce a broad picture about what earth’s climate would be like under high levels of greenhouse gas emissions. From this, information about air and sea temperatures, wind patterns and atmospheric moisture, was used to simulate where and when tropical cyclones might occur in the future.

The results suggest that the number of tropical cyclones could exceed 100 per year by about 2070, compared to an average of 90 per year at the moment. Tropical cyclones could get more intense too, if the modelling is right.

The total amount of energy tropical cyclones release is expected to increase by 45 per cent over the course of the 21st century. Some of that energy would be spent by the extra 10 or so tropical cyclones per year, but half of it would be released by intense storms getting even stronger – meaning higher winds, taller storm surges and greater economic costs.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Emanuel’s findings are being received with some skepticism by other atmospheric scientists, at least for the moment. From Climate Central:

James Elsner, an atmospheric scientist at Florida State University who was not involved in this study, downplayed the study’s conclusions given the considerable uncertainties involved with using computer models to simulate complex storms such as hurricanes.

“The results from the new Emanuel are provocative, but in my opinion there is little reason to put much weight on them when considering what might happen to tropical cyclone activity during the next 50 to 80 years,” he said in an email to Climate Central.

Emanuel points out that scientists are still learning what drives cyclonic frequency, which helps to explain the discrepancy between previous studies and this one. “The physics behind these numbers remains enigmatic, and the general relationship between tropical cyclone activity and climate is only beginning to be understood,” he wrote in the paper.

So will there be more cyclones and hurricanes as the climate changes, or not? We’ll be watching to see whether other climate scientists start reaching conclusions similar to Emanuel’s. If they do, we could be in for an even bumpier ride as the globe warms.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Read the article: 

Climate change could bring more hurricanes

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate change could bring more hurricanes