10 posts tagged “global warming”
Climate report:
Droughts in the southeast and the west, recrod rainfall in the middle of the country. same as last year and the year before. Result: massive flooding in the middle of the country. Widespread wildfires in the west. There have also been wildfires in the east. Lightning seems to be the main culprit.
Math lesson for Monday:
loads and loads of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere = global warming faster than would normally happen
runaway global warming = more severe storms, droughts, and / or flooding or more flooding than normal (aka climate gone bonkers, and those are just a few of the issues)
more severe storms = more lightning strikes
drought = dry forests
lightning strikes + dry forests = wildfires
massive flooding = dead crops, dead animals and dead people
CO2 + CH4 = R
R = a, b, c
a = x
b = y
c = we're f*cked
x + y = oh sh*t
R = Right. Not actually funny. It sucks. R is for reality check.
(last night we had storms in the southeast and the lightning was phenomenal. This after no rain for nearly all of June.I miss gentle rains; where did they go?)
A NOAA scientist named Knutsen has come up with a new theory on global warming and hurricanes. He created a computer model and has a paper published in Nature Geoscience. His claim: that global warming does not make more hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean. He also claims there will be a drop in the number of intense storms. This, from the man who a few years ago stated that global warming did affect hurricanes in a positive way (as in, more storms, more power). This, after 2005 saw the most recorded Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes ever, including one in January. This, after the lowest pressure ever recorded in a storm (Wilma). Of course, no one has said he is right. In fact, everyone else is saying "Say what?" and "Huh?" and "What has HE been smoking?" A record of 1996 – 2007: (Note the love for the Gulf of Mexico as time passes. It is becoming a bathtub thanks to warmer temps. This is where Katrina became a category 5 overnight.) 1996 saw 13 tropical storms and 8 became hurricanes. None made their way to the Gulf of Mexico after forming in the Atlantic. One became organised from a low pressure cell into a TS in the Gulf of Mexico and headed onto Florida. 1997 saw 8 tropical storms. 3 became hurricanes. One organised into a TS in the Gulf of Mexico, and headed for land; none headed there after forming in the Atlantic. 1998 had 14 storms. 10 reached the 74 mph windspeed which makes them hurricanes. One headed for the Gulf of Mexico, and four were organised into TS. 1999 had 12 tropical storms. 8 became hurricanes. One headed for the Gulf of Mexico and one became organised into a TS there. 2000 had 15 tropical storms, 8 of which became hurricanes. One organised into a TS in the Gulf of Mexico, one headed from the Atlantic for it, and one organised off the coast of Central America and crossed the Gulf close to land, where then came on land in Mexico and died. 2001 had the same number of storms, and 9 became hurricanes, 3 of which headed for the Gulf of Mexico, two made a beeline across the Equator for Central America, and the rest chose to remain in the Atlantic. 2002 only had 12 storms and 4 graduated to hurricanes. Five went for the Gulf of Mexico. 2003 had 16 storms and 7 became hurricanes. Five went for the Gulf of Mexico. 2004 had 15 storms and 9 were hurricanes. Six chose to head for the gulf of Mexico and one low pressure system that had formed off the Lesser Antilles, organised itself into a TS there. 2005 had 26 storms, and 15 became hurricanes. 10 of the storms decided the Gulf of Mexico was their destination. Hurricane Vince became the first hurricane known to cross the Atlantic and hit Spain (aka that far East from the USA). Hurricane Wilma formed off the coast of Central America and headed for the Gulf. It then went for Florida and the Atlantic coastline. It had the lowest recorded pressure ever. Hurricane Epsilon formed at latitude 31.5, quite far north in the ocean, and was the sixth known TS/hurricane to form in December. 2006 saw 10 TS and 5 became hurricanes. 3 headed for the Gulf. 2007 had 15 TS and 6 became hurricanes. 4 made their way to the Gulf, and 2 were organised there.
Cyclones, another word for hurricanes (as well as typhoons), do normally occur in the Bay of Bengal. On this planet, in most cases, warm water + wind blowing the right way = tropical storms. The average occurrence of tropical storms is 4 to 6 storms with only 2 reaching cyclone status per year, and the season runs from the spring through fall, going to sleep from June til September, being influenced by such factors as monsoons when the ITCZ moves over land. The peak number normally occur in October. They form in the ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone), the same wind belt where storms form in the Atlantic. The frequency of storms has been found to be increasing during ENSO (El Nino) years (according to the SAARC Meteorological Research Centre). The powerful cyclone Nargis hit Myanmar, formerly Burma, on May 2, 2008. At its peak it was a Category 4 hurricane, with sustained winds of 195 kilometers per hour (kmh). Highest recorded winds were 220 kmh. The storm surge caused a large tidal wave 12 feet in height that washed out entire villages. UN officials report that hundreds of thousands of people are now homeless. There is massive price gouging of food, water and fuel.
The death toll now stands at 15,000 people, with 30,000 still missing. (May 5) UPDATE MAY 7: OVER 22,000 DEAD, 41,000 MISSING, 1 MILLION HOMELESS. The UN has consulted with many scientists and last year issued a report which included the statement, that the intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons is increasing, and is directly related to global warming. If as you read this, you sit on your sofa, or computer chair, or on the grass of the park, and feel helpess, you are not. You care enough to read this, and you can care enough to unplug your clothes dryer, or increase the temp so the air conditioning is not so low you can sleep beneath a blanket in the hot of summer; you can shop with your carbon footprint in mind; you can ride a bike to work; you can vote. We are not helpless. We have enough will and brain power to make change. Peace out.
Methane Primer: In Siberia, there is a great expanse of peat. It has been frozen in permafrost for a long sleepy time, about 11,000 years. Since around 2005, it has been waking up. Global warming has been the prince on the white horse, come to kiss the sleeping gas and give it a wakeup call. The melting ice is forming lakes, and the lakes have the potential to burp out billions of tonnes of methane. Why? The reduction process, where dead plant material at the bottom breaks down and rots, which happens in water bodies naturally. But this has been frozen and having nowhere to go, now does. Where does the methane go? Up. Into the atmosphere. At the University of California, Los Angeles, Larry Smith reckons the west Siberian bog alone contains some 70 billion tonnes of methane, a round ¼ of methane stored on the land surface globally.
More than five years ago, the eastern portion of Australia’s weather changed. It was a simple change, really: it stopped raining. The climate there had been working on it for two years before that (getting drier). The drought has spread to the southern coast as well. Grapes are failing from the drought, and the Australian wine industry is thus suffering. Wheat crops are failed or stunted. Cattle and sheep farms are empty of livestock.
65% of land that is farmable is now useless. Farmers are having to abandon their farms from simply, the inability to make a living. Sheep have been sold off. The area referred to as Australia’s Food Bowl, the Murray-Darling River Basin, is the size of France and Spain together. It is nurtured by the River Murray, which is so depleted of water that it no longer reaches the ocean.
The continuation of the drought this year has been enhanced by one of the warmest winters on record.
Scientists say that the usual weather patterns that serve the country have not been showing up. Also the Indian Ocean is colder than normal, which is causing the uncooperative weather to be even drier. This is supposed to be a La Nina year, which brings heavy rains but it has not happened. (Remember Noaa said it was an El Nino year for a bit. Oops.)
It can be normal for the continent to experience droughts. But not like this. This is something new. And in combination with warmer than normal temperatures, evaporation rate is higher, which means, even more drier. Neville Nichols from Monash University, says this is due to a response by the atmosphere to increased greenhouse gases. AKA, global warming. He says, and I quote: "In some regions, as happened in Australia, global warming will lead to abrupt regional change. In Australia, it arrived. In other regions, too, the changes will be rapid and sudden and confronting."
Not only are people suffering from the drought.
Importantly, because they did nothing to being this problem about, wildlife suffers too. As just one example, people are reporting seeing dead koala bears. Their staple food source, specific species of Eucalyptus trees, are dying off due to the extended drought. They were already having a tough time from development destroying their natural habitat, as well as pet dogs attacking and killing them.
So we are history
The shadow covers me
The sky above a blaze that only lovers see
The sun goes down
He takes the day but I'm gone
And it's ok
In this blue shade
My tears dry on their own
(Amy Winehouse)
In April, Canadian Environment Minister John Baird stated that meeting the standards of the Kyoto Protocol would cause Canada’s economy to go into a recession. Specifically, he claimed that this would cause the price of petrol (gasoline) to go up, and thus jobs would be lost (and all hell would break loose. Yeah. That ole’ conservative squeaky wheel, jobs would be lost. Remember the saying, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.) Since his posting into office in January 2006, Stephen Harper, Canada’s George Bush clone, has ragged on the Kyoto Protocol and basically dissed it. The WWF (World Wildlife Fund) has blasted the country for its lack of Kyoto-mindedness: "Canada will fail to achieve its Kyoto targets due to the proposed expansion of its oil sands resources in Alberta", they state. In the past, oil sands were a stupid resource for oil, because it takes three times as much energy to get it as traditional sources, so it was pretty much ignored by the industry. About one fourth of Alberta Province is oil sands territory (about as big as France). It is an area called the Boreal Forest. In order to get the oil sands, you have to scrape off basically, the land. With everything on top of it. There is no good that can come of that for anything that lives there. (So far Shell Oil has already destroyed large areas in mining it and done nothing to replace it, even thought they promised.) Also used in extraction are great quantities of water, from the Athabasca River. The river has not been able to hold up to this kind of reduction. AT 2.5 to 4 barrels of water per barrel of oil produced, you can see the impact this type of mining causes on the river alone. If Canada is worried about the price of oil, mining oil sands uses fossil fuel to extract it, as well as costs loads to extract the oil from the sands. But they have a shed load of it, and just by pure numbers, will make a bunch of money. Here is their projection for oil sands production: "production grows from 175 000 m3/d (1.1 MMb/d) in 2005 to a projected 472,000 m3/d (3.0 MMb/d) by 2015", from their report, "Canada’s Oil Sands: Opportunities and Challenges to 2015". They have "political scenarios for oil sands market expansion" in their report. They have an official name for their oil sands supply: The Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. They plan a "pipeline expansion". They believe they have 315 billion barrels of "recoverable" crude oil in those sands. They plan on selling some of it to Asia and to the U.S. (remember the Prime Minister and Chinese connection?) Their report has stuff on price to mine the sands, per MCF (thousand cubic feet) and the market price for crude oil, fascinating, really. But it is fascinating…this is the reason they are so resistant to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They want to use what they got and they want to be able to sell it freely and get on the fossil fuel bandwagon. And who is in bed with them on it? Well, let us see: Chevron-Texaco, Exxon Mobil and Shell Oil. These companies invested so far, billions (there’s Dr. Evil again…billion and billions of dollars…) and proposing $100 billion within thirteen years. Here I get technical, and if you want to scroll past it, go on. However, it will give you an understanding of how wasteful production and processing is of oil sands: Methods: • Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) • SAGD and upgrading • Mining • Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS); • Toe-Heel-Air Injection (THAI) • Primary (Cold) Production • Upgrading/Synthetic Crude Oil (SCO) production Now here is a table of GHG (greenhouse gas) intensity of these methods, by the oil industry themselves: Production GHG Intensity in Tons of COs per cubic meter Mining of bitumen 0.22 SAGD production of bitumen 0.35 THAI production of bitumen 0.41 Cyclic steam production of bitumen 0.57 Upgrading of bitumen 0.28
So, in other words, to produce oil from oil sands via cyclic steam, you give off 57% of what you recover. Is that economically viable? I suppose in a world where they forsee oil prices skyrocketing (as they will) and if they do not give a shyte about the Kyoto Protocol and their country’s promise already to reduce their emissions, and one more facet of this "in a world where…": in the world of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the greed and consumption that this administration is soaked in, yeah. They would dump their commitment to the earth’s future and safeguarding its climate, for cash.
Mining the oil sands as well as using them for fuel, will blow Canada’s CO2 emissions out of the water, as far as the Kyoto Protocol is concerned.
In fact, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has put out a report on this, and they state that Alberta Province alone will emit 121,791,000 tons of CO2 alone in mining oil sands. At the end of their report, they state: "As can be seen from the figure, target emissions for oil sands under the new regulatory framework are already significantly above the Kyoto targets and the large gap between the two only gets larger with time."
On borealforest.org, Canada’s forest page touts their country as "a forest nation" and here’s the big one: "We will fulfill our global responsibilities in the care and use of forests, maintaining their contribution to the environment and the well-being of all living things." Hogwash, I say. Mining oil sands is NOT gettin’ it. Liar, liar, oil sands on fire.
Often in the arena of climate change and global warming, the fingers are all pointed at the burning of fossil fuels. (Let’s get one thing straight: the temperatures are rising, the Arctic and Antarctic ice is melting, and the sea levels are rising. These are straight-up facts and not some invented "conspiracy". If you would like to believe they are not happening, then go ahead and live in your fantasy world. But don’t bloody read my blog anymore, because I am a scientist and I deal with the facts.) Left out of the discussions, summits, thinktanks, and solutions, has oft been the issue of deforestation. Even at the UN summit this week, I have yet to find that anyone’s brought up this subject. Everyone is spouting climate change and emissions caps, which is fantastic, but no one is saying, om….how ‘bout not cutting down all the trees and how ‘bout, not turning a massive meadow into a Wal-Mart (or its equivalent, a Tessco, a Super-Target, a insert name for giant store where you can get anything from tea to tampons) is about the worst thing for the planet, you can possibly do? With the climate, as with anything else on the earth (or outer space for that matter), when you affect one thing, you affect a whole bunch of other things, to put it simply. For instance, as the arctic ice melts from warmer temperatures, the area that was white in colour and reflected sunlight back to space, is darker, and absorbs more radiation, thus increasing the temps in the area even more. With deforestation, you are messing with the hydrologic cycle in a big way. Trees and plants are an important portion of this cycle. They are in two ways: one, they absorb the water through their leaves and roots, and send it back out through their leaves, as transpiration. Secondly, they filter the runoff by doing the previous process. When they are removed in large amounts, the cycle has been disrupted. Every day, an actively growing plant transpires between 5 and 10 times as much water as it can hold at once. Trees and plants also take in carbon in photosynthesis and release oxygen. This means, removal of plants can increase global warming. You can say, but hey, can’t a rise in temps cause more plants to grow? Well, yes, you COULD say that. However, it will (and has) also cause droughts, which kill plants (I watched my yard in NC go from lush to desert wasteland for the past 3 summers, even lost a great big tree). As well, many of the types of trees and plants that grow in an area, will not be able to adapt with changing temperatures, nor will many of the creatures that fertilise or pollinate them. Then we have the issue of crops---a whole ‘nother issue that would make this posting too long. The Amazon rainforest provides the world’s ocean balance with about 1/5 of its freshwater. (The Amazon rainforest now has a new threat: soy farming. Soy is used in feed to fatten chickens, make vegetable oil, etc. How on earth will a savvy consumer be able to track that?) Removal of these trees, messes up a big part of the globe’s hydro cycle. Also in removal of them and subsequent burning, contributes more carbon into the atmosphere. Published on September 25 2007 in PNAS, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, is an article on river runoff increase and deforestation/land use change. Their findings: the observed significant increase in global runoff in the 20th century was mainly a consequence of climate change and widespread deforestation. As of this month, the Northwest Passage has been open (from ice) for the first time since satellite observation of the area began in the 1970s. By the way: the process of making concrete also contributes to CO2 in the atmosphere. Wal-Marts suck. (I have boycotted them for about ten years now)
Northern Nevada: Over 12 wildfires that encompass 55 square miles, one of which was 33 square miles alone, scorched the land and forced evacuations and highway closings. The area was already dry and a persistent heat wave with temps over 100 degrees Farenheit has managed to evaporate even more moisture from the thirsty land and plant life was all that was needed to encourage the blaze.
Utah, near Salt Lake City: A lightning strike was responsible for a wildfire that has dibs on a large geothermal power plant, homes, farms and campsites. Three people were killed in the fire when they tried to help a fellow farmer save his hay crop from it with sprinklers. The fire also downed power lines. It used drought-dried pinion trees as its fuel.
Inyo National Forest, near Yosemite National Park, California: the million-acre park as of today has lost over 17,000 acres to wildfire. Over 400 firefighters have been called to battle the blaze. Campers and people in a lodge have been evacuated.
Great Falls and Billings, Montana: Record temperatures were set Saturday in the persistent heat wave. Temps soared to 104. Cows outnumber people in the area two to one. (Hint: cows are big producers of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas that outpowers CO2 by 10 to 20 times. How? They fart alot. Guess that means my ex husband is a big contributor too.) One farmer complained that his hay crop was in danger of "disintegrating" in the heat.
Other baked Montana cities: Havre,105 degrees F, Bozeman, 106 and 107 in Missoula.
Cooking the residents of Idaho and setting more records: Boise, 105 F, Pocatello, 102 and Lewiston, 101, on Friday. The biggest producer of electricity in the state, Idaho Power, reported record consumption since they have kept records, which would be for the past 90 years, of electricity on Friday as people cranked up the air conditioners and glued themselves to their television sets to wait out the heat wave. The last record usage for the power company was set in 2006.
Phoenix, Arizona was in trouble as temps reached 115 on Wednesday. It dropped to 112 on Thursday.
Eastern Oregon: Record high temps were set on Thursday.
California cities: Needles, 115. San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles, 100. Wildfires burn from Santa Barbara to San Diego, fueled by the drought and high temps. One fire burned in Los Padres National Forest, where it has claimed nearly 500 acres so far. Another fire rages near San Diego and has charred 110 acres at the time I wrote this. In Kern County, a fire that has been burning sine June 24 and burned over 19 square miles has destroyed 13 homes and 18 outbuildings. Lake Tahoe: Over 200 homes were destroyed in a wildfire that burned 3,100 acres.
California Rain: Only 3.21 inches of precipitation downtown between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2007, the driest year on record, and 12 inches short of the norm.
Meanwhile, there is flooding in China, India, England, Italy, Spain, and other countries.
John Jakes said, "Be yourself. Above all, let who you are, what you are, what you believe, shine through every sentence you write, every piece you finish."
I believe that global warming is real, and that humans have created a mess that we may not be able to get out of. As a Geologist and Earth Scientist, I am educated and informed and I know that even though we ARE coming out of an ice age and the earth is warming on its own, it has been warming at a pace far beyond geologically historical precedence. Also I know enough about chemistry that I can say with certainty, you put a bunch of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, you will make the earth warm up faster. Also if you cause the ocean currents to change, and it is happening in the Arctic from the ice melt, you will further cause climate change, because the Gulf Stream warms western Europe and it will be disrupted and cause, we believe, cooling there. All this will be bad news. All this will create havoc in that it will interrupt crop production, cause some lifeforms to go extinct while others flourish like insects, and disease and death will ensue. And how 'bout that extreme weather stuff.
I am not a pessimist. I am an optimist. But I am also a realist. And a mother. I want my son to have a world to live in that is not in chaos or misery. I want my grandchildren to have it too. Also I love, love, love creatures and plants(except maybe lice, ticks and fleas and mosquitos). And even the lowly dung beetle has its place in the grand scheme of things. They all have the right to be here and not be destroyed because Joe Yuppie in his 3200 square foot house with a big green grass lawn and sprinkler system wanted a Nissan SUV that gets 18 mpg for his gym bunnie wife to drive his soccer champ son around in because it is "safer". Really?
Safer? Will his children have food to eat in ten years? Or will they die from exposure because heating their house cost too much? Or will they get killed running from gunfire because of massive political chaos from people being furious at their government for screwing them over for a hundred years?
Neil Young sang:
I was lying in a burned out basement
With the full moon in my eyes.
I was hoping for replacement
When the sun burst thru the sky.
There was a band playing in my head
And I felt like getting high.
I was thinking about what a
Friend had said
I was hoping it was a lie.
Thinking about what a
Friend had said
I was hoping it was a lie.
Look at Mother Nature on the run.
One of the "most important sources", in fact, listed as the second most important, of global warming, is deforestation, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. According to the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, land use change, which includes deforestation, is a major contributor to global warming. And the list goes on. However, everyone seems to have forgotten about the deforestation problem and the focus is on fossil fuels. Deforestation still goes on.
The basics:
trees produce oxygen and consume carbon dioxide
less trees = more CO2 in the atmosphere
Below are 2 images from the NDVI, a satellite-filtered assessment of vegetation from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin*.
These are 2 images of South America, one taken in 1998, the other in 2002.
Anything after 2002 does not seem available at this time.
Have a look at the map of South America at the bottom and where Brazil is, home to the Amazon Rainforest.
On the NDVI, green = vegetation. Brown = not.
Map of South America with countries: Note Brazil
How I feel about the future of the rainforest (a peek at a byotch's softer side):
*By the way, the global satellite program seems to have been taken over by the Defense Dept. Interesting.
cut and pasted from my last G-8 update:
Addressing climate change is not a "long term issue". Not the "addressing" part. It is RIGHT HERE AND NOW AND VERY IMMEDIATELY URGENTLY NEEDING A SOLUTION AND NO MORE DICKING AROUND. It has been "ADDRESSED" by geologists and climatologists and biologists for ALMOST TWENTY YEARS. And there is no "diversity" of approaches.
It is very clear what must be done:
-
reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately
- take the steps to change from using fossil fuels as energy sources to greenhouse-gas-free sources
- stop deforesting the rain forests (which seems to be on the backburner lately)
- change technology that creates emmissions of greenhouse gases (CO2 is not the only bad guy)
- the nations with the money and the know-how must help the developing ones not make the same.
Now here's some stuff to make you wake up and smell the coffee: (and ooo weee ooo, it is from scientists too, nerds like me who got many many years of edumacation in order to make pithy paychecks trying to do something that matters, just to get ignored by the rich and powerful people)
Present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 420,000 years. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution
Methane (CH4) is more abundant in the Earth’s atmosphere now than at any time in at least the past 420,000 years.
Once in the atmosphere, methane absorbs terrestrial infrared radiation that would otherwise escape to space. This property can contribute to the warming of the atmosphere, which is why methane is a greenhouse gas. Methane is about
21 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) by weight (see box below). Methane's chemical lifetime in the atmosphere is approximately 12 years.
Did you have your coffee yet? Are we ready to do something about this? I don't know, you tell me.