Sunday, May 31, 2009
Weekly Drought Monitor - as of May 26th, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Desert Storm Clouds
Friday, May 29, 2009
Global CEOs back greenhouse gas cuts, carbon caps
FROM: USA Today
By John Heilprin, Associated Press Writer
COPENHAGEN — Global business leaders added momentum to prospects for a new U.N. climate treaty by agreeing Tuesday that the world must cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by mid-century by setting specific limits on carbon.
Government officials reported little progress in setting such limits, however, showing how distant a new treaty remains.
Some 500 CEOs and other top business experts said at the conclusion of the three-day World Business Summit on Climate Change in Denmark that "immediate and substantial" emissions cuts were needed by 2020, followed by cuts of at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. They said governments should use the marketplace to set a global price on carbon instead of taxing it, according to a statement from conference organizers.
Under cap-and-trade, the government establishes a market for carbon dioxide by selling credits to companies that emit greenhouse gases. The companies can then invest in technologies to reduce emissions to reach a certain target or buy credits from other companies that already have met their emission reduction goals.
But there is widespread dispute over the details of how cap-and-trade would work, with critics saying it would lead to higher costs for some consumers and could hurt bruised economies.
The business leaders said governments' overriding aim at a December U.N. meeting in Copenhagen on replacing the 1997 KyotoProtocol should be limiting the global average rise in temperature to a maximum of 3.6 degrees F.
Global temperatures have risen 0.22 degrees since 1990, according to one U.S. government estimate. The U.N.'s chief panel on climate change estimates that the risk of increased severe weather will rise if the global average temperature increases between 1.8 and 3.6 degrees above 1990 levels.
"There is nothing to be gained through delay," the statement said, and the richest countries should be the first to make the biggest emissions cuts.
Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen told participants "your words are sweet music in my ears," and called for developed countries to lead the way and enact emissions cuts of 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.
But doing that will be difficult. At a separate meeting in Paris, French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, playing host to talks among the world's biggest polluters, said the United States had backpedaled on promises to slash carbon emissions but China appeared "absolutely determined" to make deep cuts.
Borloo suggested President Barack Obama wasn't following through on an earlier call for requiring deep cuts in U.S. carbon emissions.
"We want to tell them, 'Yes, you can,' you can do a lot more," Borloo told Europe-1 radio in a report card on the Major Economies Forum, which brought together the 17 countries that produce four-fifths of global carbon emissions.
The top U.S. negotiator on climate change, Todd Stern, defended the Obama administration's commitment to what he called a "seismic change" in the country's carbon emissions and attitude toward fighting global warming.
Stern said the overall U.S. targets were on a par with what Europe is proposing though are calculated differently.
"I don't think they are going to match. I don't think they need to match," he said. "We advanced the ball, though we have a long way to go to get to Copenhagen."
Obama has called for an 83% reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by the year 2050 using cap-and-trade. His budget plan banks on raising $646 billion in revenues from 2012 to 2019 from auctioning emission credits to companies. The money would fund renewable energy projects and provide a tax credit to help families cope with higher energy prices.
If governments agree in Copenhagen in December to set new limits to make carbon dioxide a scarcer commodity, CEOs said, their companies can lead the way to a greener economy.
"We're going to have to fundamentally redefine our business models in a low-carbon world," said James Rogers, chairman of U.S.-based electricity provider Duke Energy Corp.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol's mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases, which have produced mixed results, expire in 2012.
The United States never signed on to Kyoto, citing the costs to the economy and lack of participation by China, India and other fast-developing countries. But some of those countries have said rich countries are not aggressive enough in cutting their own emissions.
The hosts of the Paris meeting said they made progress on finding $100 billion a year to help poor countries limit pollution and adapt to climate change.
The next major round of U.N. climate talks toward a new treaty will begin in days in Bonn, Germany.
By John Heilprin, Associated Press Writer
COPENHAGEN — Global business leaders added momentum to prospects for a new U.N. climate treaty by agreeing Tuesday that the world must cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by mid-century by setting specific limits on carbon.
Government officials reported little progress in setting such limits, however, showing how distant a new treaty remains.
Some 500 CEOs and other top business experts said at the conclusion of the three-day World Business Summit on Climate Change in Denmark that "immediate and substantial" emissions cuts were needed by 2020, followed by cuts of at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050. They said governments should use the marketplace to set a global price on carbon instead of taxing it, according to a statement from conference organizers.
Under cap-and-trade, the government establishes a market for carbon dioxide by selling credits to companies that emit greenhouse gases. The companies can then invest in technologies to reduce emissions to reach a certain target or buy credits from other companies that already have met their emission reduction goals.
But there is widespread dispute over the details of how cap-and-trade would work, with critics saying it would lead to higher costs for some consumers and could hurt bruised economies.
The business leaders said governments' overriding aim at a December U.N. meeting in Copenhagen on replacing the 1997 KyotoProtocol should be limiting the global average rise in temperature to a maximum of 3.6 degrees F.
Global temperatures have risen 0.22 degrees since 1990, according to one U.S. government estimate. The U.N.'s chief panel on climate change estimates that the risk of increased severe weather will rise if the global average temperature increases between 1.8 and 3.6 degrees above 1990 levels.
"There is nothing to be gained through delay," the statement said, and the richest countries should be the first to make the biggest emissions cuts.
Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen told participants "your words are sweet music in my ears," and called for developed countries to lead the way and enact emissions cuts of 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.
But doing that will be difficult. At a separate meeting in Paris, French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, playing host to talks among the world's biggest polluters, said the United States had backpedaled on promises to slash carbon emissions but China appeared "absolutely determined" to make deep cuts.
Borloo suggested President Barack Obama wasn't following through on an earlier call for requiring deep cuts in U.S. carbon emissions.
"We want to tell them, 'Yes, you can,' you can do a lot more," Borloo told Europe-1 radio in a report card on the Major Economies Forum, which brought together the 17 countries that produce four-fifths of global carbon emissions.
The top U.S. negotiator on climate change, Todd Stern, defended the Obama administration's commitment to what he called a "seismic change" in the country's carbon emissions and attitude toward fighting global warming.
Stern said the overall U.S. targets were on a par with what Europe is proposing though are calculated differently.
"I don't think they are going to match. I don't think they need to match," he said. "We advanced the ball, though we have a long way to go to get to Copenhagen."
Obama has called for an 83% reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by the year 2050 using cap-and-trade. His budget plan banks on raising $646 billion in revenues from 2012 to 2019 from auctioning emission credits to companies. The money would fund renewable energy projects and provide a tax credit to help families cope with higher energy prices.
If governments agree in Copenhagen in December to set new limits to make carbon dioxide a scarcer commodity, CEOs said, their companies can lead the way to a greener economy.
"We're going to have to fundamentally redefine our business models in a low-carbon world," said James Rogers, chairman of U.S.-based electricity provider Duke Energy Corp.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol's mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases, which have produced mixed results, expire in 2012.
The United States never signed on to Kyoto, citing the costs to the economy and lack of participation by China, India and other fast-developing countries. But some of those countries have said rich countries are not aggressive enough in cutting their own emissions.
The hosts of the Paris meeting said they made progress on finding $100 billion a year to help poor countries limit pollution and adapt to climate change.
The next major round of U.N. climate talks toward a new treaty will begin in days in Bonn, Germany.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
US: Carbon pollution to grow by 40%.
FROM: USA Today
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON AP — The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide seeping into the atmosphere will increase by nearly 40% worldwide by 2030 if ways are not found to require mandatory emission reductions, a U.S. government report said Wednesday.
The Energy Information Administration said world energy consumption is expected to grow by 44% over the next two decades as the global economy recovers and continues to expand. The biggest increases in energy use will come from economically developing countries such as China and India.
Substantial growth is expected in the use of renewable energy sources such as hydropower, wind and solar, the report said. But it also said overall growth in demand will require continued reliance on fossil fuels, especially oil and coal.
As a result, the analysis predicted a steady increase in emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that scientists say threatens a serious warming of the Earth later this century. Between now and 2030, Wednesday's report said, global carbon dioxide pollution is expected to increase by 39%. That translates to 33 billion metric tons in 2015 and 40 billion metric tons by 2030, compared to 29 billion metric tons in 2006, the report said.
The EIA report emphasized that its analysis is based on current regulatory and legal requirements and does not assume enactment of laws or international treaties requiring reductions in greenhouse gases. Any such action would force shifts away from fossil fuels and less carbon pollution being released.
Congress is considering legislation that would reduce greenhouse gases by 17% by 2020 and about 80% by mid-century. President Obama has called for mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. An international conference is scheduled for December to try to work out a treaty requiring such emission reductions.
But the EIA analysis provides an indication of how difficult such reductions might be to achieve given the expected increase in future energy growth and continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels without some international, mandatory action to address climate change.
The EIA report said that "much of the increases in carbon dioxide emissions is projected to occur among the developing nations" including China and India.
It said 94% of the world's expected increase in industrial energy use between now and 2030 is expected in the economically developing countries, with Brazil, Russia, India and China expected to account for two-thirds of that growth.
The EIA report projected continued growth in demand for oil, although unconventional resources such as biofuels, oil sands and liquid coal are expected to increase as well and account for nearly half of the projected increase in overall liquid fuel demand.
The report declined to project future oil prices, noting that "recent experience demonstrates that world oil prices can be extremely volatile." Instead it provided a broad range of possible future oil prices, depending on future production and demand of oil and other liquid fuels.
Crude oil prices could range from $50 a barrel in 2030 or as much as $200 a barrel in 2007 dollars, the report said, depending on available supplies of oil, biofuels and other liquid fuels.
Crude oil prices increased to about $63 a barrel on Wednesday, the highest since last November. Oil prices reached a peak of $147 a barrel in mid-2008.
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON AP — The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide seeping into the atmosphere will increase by nearly 40% worldwide by 2030 if ways are not found to require mandatory emission reductions, a U.S. government report said Wednesday.
The Energy Information Administration said world energy consumption is expected to grow by 44% over the next two decades as the global economy recovers and continues to expand. The biggest increases in energy use will come from economically developing countries such as China and India.
Substantial growth is expected in the use of renewable energy sources such as hydropower, wind and solar, the report said. But it also said overall growth in demand will require continued reliance on fossil fuels, especially oil and coal.
As a result, the analysis predicted a steady increase in emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that scientists say threatens a serious warming of the Earth later this century. Between now and 2030, Wednesday's report said, global carbon dioxide pollution is expected to increase by 39%. That translates to 33 billion metric tons in 2015 and 40 billion metric tons by 2030, compared to 29 billion metric tons in 2006, the report said.
The EIA report emphasized that its analysis is based on current regulatory and legal requirements and does not assume enactment of laws or international treaties requiring reductions in greenhouse gases. Any such action would force shifts away from fossil fuels and less carbon pollution being released.
Congress is considering legislation that would reduce greenhouse gases by 17% by 2020 and about 80% by mid-century. President Obama has called for mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. An international conference is scheduled for December to try to work out a treaty requiring such emission reductions.
But the EIA analysis provides an indication of how difficult such reductions might be to achieve given the expected increase in future energy growth and continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels without some international, mandatory action to address climate change.
The EIA report said that "much of the increases in carbon dioxide emissions is projected to occur among the developing nations" including China and India.
It said 94% of the world's expected increase in industrial energy use between now and 2030 is expected in the economically developing countries, with Brazil, Russia, India and China expected to account for two-thirds of that growth.
The EIA report projected continued growth in demand for oil, although unconventional resources such as biofuels, oil sands and liquid coal are expected to increase as well and account for nearly half of the projected increase in overall liquid fuel demand.
The report declined to project future oil prices, noting that "recent experience demonstrates that world oil prices can be extremely volatile." Instead it provided a broad range of possible future oil prices, depending on future production and demand of oil and other liquid fuels.
Crude oil prices could range from $50 a barrel in 2030 or as much as $200 a barrel in 2007 dollars, the report said, depending on available supplies of oil, biofuels and other liquid fuels.
Crude oil prices increased to about $63 a barrel on Wednesday, the highest since last November. Oil prices reached a peak of $147 a barrel in mid-2008.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Dust storms speed snowmelt in the West
FROM: Los Angeles Times
An unusually high number of the storms has left a film of dust on the Rocky Mountain snowpack, causing it to melt earlier and forcing farmers to adjust. This could be the new normal, scientists say.
By Nicholas Riccardi
Reporting from Denver -- A series of unusual spring dust storms has left the snowcapped mountains of western Colorado stained brown and red, even a bit pink. The dust is speeding up the runoff to rivers that supply millions of people with water and raising fears of an increasingly arid West.
Twelve dust storms barreled into the southern Rockies from the deserts of Arizona, Utah and New Mexico so far this year. In contrast, four storms hit the mountains all year long in 2003. Eight occurred in each of the last three years.
"This year's been really, really strong," said Jason Neff, a hydrologist at the University of Colorado-Boulder. "Something's been going on, and I don't think we're exactly sure what."
The storms leave a dark film on snow that melts it faster by hastening its absorption of the sun's energy. That, coupled with unseasonably warm temperatures, has sped up the runoff here, swelling rivers to near flood stage, threatening to make reservoirs overflow and fueling fears that there will not be enough water left for late-summer crops.
"It creates a high-pressured game of Twister for water managers," said Thomas Painter, director of the Snow Optics Lab at the University of Utah. "They're having to make decisions quickly to hold on to water or release water."
Painter has found that dust can speed up snowmelt by as much as 35 days -- in other words, snow that would normally disappear by May 15 would instead be gone by April 10.
Ever since European settlement of the West, there has been dust, caused by outside forces breaking the fragile crust that holds undisturbed desert soil in place. Initially, grazing cattle kicked up the dust. Scientists say it is now more likely to be caused by off-road vehicles, mountain bikers or energy exploration. In a study last year, Neff found that the amount of dust in the Rockies is five times greater than before the late 19th century.
"This is really the story of the wholesale transformation of the West," Painter said.
Even without the dust storms, forecasters predict that global warming will reduce the soil quality in the western United States to dust-bowl levels by 2050, said Jayne Belnap, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey. The Southwest's temperatures are expected to rise by 10 degrees Celsius by 2100.
"It's just a harbinger of the future," Belnap said of the dust storms. "This is the kind of world we need to imagine we're going to be living in and decide if we can afford this dust."
Dust and soot are contributing to the disappearance of mountain snows and the disturbance of water supplies all over the world. The Asian "brown cloud" rising from that continent's megalopolises is blamed for speeding up the melting of glaciers and snow in the Himalayas. Dust blown from the plains of eastern Africa is helping destroy the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro.
In California, the Sierra Nevada snowpack gets some soot from Asia and from the state's own smog-emitting centers, but little dust. State officials have begun to study whether that soot could be contributing to a sped-up snowmelt that, if it continues unabated, could someday overwhelm the reservoir system.
Because winds in the western United States blow from the southwest, dust from the deserts of California, the Great Basin and the Colorado plateau is deposited on the southern Rockies.
The amounts of wind-blown dust in the West peaked in the 1920s, reaching seven times the historic norm. Scientists think the level of dust dropped after Congress sharply limited cattle grazing in 1934, near the height of the Dust Bowl.
Today, levels are five times the historic norm.
It is only recently that scientists have begun to study dust's effect on snow and water supplies.
Painter and his colleagues only started tracking storms in 2003. "We haven't thought about dust as a serious environmental issue," Neff said.
This year's storms put the issue front and center, especially the final three, which swept through southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado within a few days of one another in late March and early April. Mountains that usually remain snow-covered until midsummer are already almost bare along the entire western stretch of Colorado.
"We've seen several days with just incredible obstruction in the air," said Steve Vandiver, general manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District, 7,500 feet high in the San Luis Valley of southern Colorado.
Now the snowmelt is about 20 days early, and Vandiver's system is on the brink of flooding.
He said some farmers and ranchers who rely on streams that normally run all summer long will be without water. "This whole system was built around the runoff coming pretty much as the crops came up," he said.
The dust left its smear on a number of Colorado's storied ski resorts, leading to grousing by some skiers about slushier, dirtier snow.
Jeff Hanley, a spokesman for the Aspen Skiing Co., said that as long as slopes were being groomed the dust was not a problem.
"It didn't affect our operations. It just looked kind of funny," he said. "You'd ski and turn around and look at your tracks and they'd be red chocolate."
He said the industry is not worried -- yet. "If it's going to be a regular thing for the next few years, that's one thing, but we don't know that yet."
But some scientists note that the West has ended an unusual, 50-year wet period and is returning to its normal, more arid state.
Belnap, the USGS scientist, said that the sort of activities that kick up dust may not be increasing -- they just may be more damaging because conditions are drier.
"We've been talking about this for 20 years, but it's been wet and we've had a lot of plants" helping to hold the soil down, Belnap said. "It's not necessarily that everyone's doing more. You've suddenly got a drier surface."
An unusually high number of the storms has left a film of dust on the Rocky Mountain snowpack, causing it to melt earlier and forcing farmers to adjust. This could be the new normal, scientists say.
By Nicholas Riccardi
Reporting from Denver -- A series of unusual spring dust storms has left the snowcapped mountains of western Colorado stained brown and red, even a bit pink. The dust is speeding up the runoff to rivers that supply millions of people with water and raising fears of an increasingly arid West.
Twelve dust storms barreled into the southern Rockies from the deserts of Arizona, Utah and New Mexico so far this year. In contrast, four storms hit the mountains all year long in 2003. Eight occurred in each of the last three years.
"This year's been really, really strong," said Jason Neff, a hydrologist at the University of Colorado-Boulder. "Something's been going on, and I don't think we're exactly sure what."
The storms leave a dark film on snow that melts it faster by hastening its absorption of the sun's energy. That, coupled with unseasonably warm temperatures, has sped up the runoff here, swelling rivers to near flood stage, threatening to make reservoirs overflow and fueling fears that there will not be enough water left for late-summer crops.
"It creates a high-pressured game of Twister for water managers," said Thomas Painter, director of the Snow Optics Lab at the University of Utah. "They're having to make decisions quickly to hold on to water or release water."
Painter has found that dust can speed up snowmelt by as much as 35 days -- in other words, snow that would normally disappear by May 15 would instead be gone by April 10.
Ever since European settlement of the West, there has been dust, caused by outside forces breaking the fragile crust that holds undisturbed desert soil in place. Initially, grazing cattle kicked up the dust. Scientists say it is now more likely to be caused by off-road vehicles, mountain bikers or energy exploration. In a study last year, Neff found that the amount of dust in the Rockies is five times greater than before the late 19th century.
"This is really the story of the wholesale transformation of the West," Painter said.
Even without the dust storms, forecasters predict that global warming will reduce the soil quality in the western United States to dust-bowl levels by 2050, said Jayne Belnap, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey. The Southwest's temperatures are expected to rise by 10 degrees Celsius by 2100.
"It's just a harbinger of the future," Belnap said of the dust storms. "This is the kind of world we need to imagine we're going to be living in and decide if we can afford this dust."
Dust and soot are contributing to the disappearance of mountain snows and the disturbance of water supplies all over the world. The Asian "brown cloud" rising from that continent's megalopolises is blamed for speeding up the melting of glaciers and snow in the Himalayas. Dust blown from the plains of eastern Africa is helping destroy the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro.
In California, the Sierra Nevada snowpack gets some soot from Asia and from the state's own smog-emitting centers, but little dust. State officials have begun to study whether that soot could be contributing to a sped-up snowmelt that, if it continues unabated, could someday overwhelm the reservoir system.
Because winds in the western United States blow from the southwest, dust from the deserts of California, the Great Basin and the Colorado plateau is deposited on the southern Rockies.
The amounts of wind-blown dust in the West peaked in the 1920s, reaching seven times the historic norm. Scientists think the level of dust dropped after Congress sharply limited cattle grazing in 1934, near the height of the Dust Bowl.
Today, levels are five times the historic norm.
It is only recently that scientists have begun to study dust's effect on snow and water supplies.
Painter and his colleagues only started tracking storms in 2003. "We haven't thought about dust as a serious environmental issue," Neff said.
This year's storms put the issue front and center, especially the final three, which swept through southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado within a few days of one another in late March and early April. Mountains that usually remain snow-covered until midsummer are already almost bare along the entire western stretch of Colorado.
"We've seen several days with just incredible obstruction in the air," said Steve Vandiver, general manager of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District, 7,500 feet high in the San Luis Valley of southern Colorado.
Now the snowmelt is about 20 days early, and Vandiver's system is on the brink of flooding.
He said some farmers and ranchers who rely on streams that normally run all summer long will be without water. "This whole system was built around the runoff coming pretty much as the crops came up," he said.
The dust left its smear on a number of Colorado's storied ski resorts, leading to grousing by some skiers about slushier, dirtier snow.
Jeff Hanley, a spokesman for the Aspen Skiing Co., said that as long as slopes were being groomed the dust was not a problem.
"It didn't affect our operations. It just looked kind of funny," he said. "You'd ski and turn around and look at your tracks and they'd be red chocolate."
He said the industry is not worried -- yet. "If it's going to be a regular thing for the next few years, that's one thing, but we don't know that yet."
But some scientists note that the West has ended an unusual, 50-year wet period and is returning to its normal, more arid state.
Belnap, the USGS scientist, said that the sort of activities that kick up dust may not be increasing -- they just may be more damaging because conditions are drier.
"We've been talking about this for 20 years, but it's been wet and we've had a lot of plants" helping to hold the soil down, Belnap said. "It's not necessarily that everyone's doing more. You've suddenly got a drier surface."
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Global warming may be twice as bad as previously expected
FROM: USA Today
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
Global warming will be twice as severe as previous estimates indicate, according to a new study published this month in the Journal of Climate, a publication of the American Meteorological Society.
The research, conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), predicts a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise more than 9 degrees (F) by 2100, compared to a previous 2003 MIT study that forecast a rise of just over 4 degrees.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 forecast a temperature rise of anywhere from 2 to 11 degrees by 2100 based on a variety of different greenhouse-gas-emissions scenarios.
The projections in the MIT study were done using 400 applications of a computer model, which MIT says is the most comprehensive and sophisticated climate model to date. The model looks at the effects of economic activity as well as the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems.
The improved economic modeling and newer economic data (which gives a lower chance of reduced emissions) are among the major changes from the 2003 model application.
Unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, "there is significantly more risk than we previously estimated," says study co-author Ronald Prinn of MIT. "There's no way the world can or should take these risks."
"The results appear to be credible and quantify a certain unease many scientists have on the real magnitude of the climate problem ahead of us, one that is not adequately appreciated by most politicians," writes Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and an IPCC lead author, in an e-mail.
"The difficulty of dealing with inertia in human systems and infrastructure, and the lack of current incentives and a global approach to the problem means that reducing emissions will be a major challenge for humanity," he added.
Funding for the study came in part in grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and by sponsors of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.
"To my knowledge, this is indeed the most exhaustive end-to-end analysis of climate change impacts yet performed," notes Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University and also an IPCC author. "The results of the analysis are sobering, namely that we face a monumental challenge if we are to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system."
*************
Earlier this week, the National Climatic Data Center reported that the Earth's temperature for the first third of this year was the sixth-warmest on record. The global combined land and ocean surface temperture of 55.8 degrees F is tied with 2003 for the sixth-warmest January-April period, since records began in 1880. As for April, the global temperature of 56.7 degrees was the fifth-warmest April on record, and marked the 33rd consecutive April with an average surface temperature above the 20th-century average.
In the USA, April was cooler-than-average, just under 1 degree below the 20th-century average. Precipitation was above normal, with the central and southern USA experiencing the wettest conditions.
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
Global warming will be twice as severe as previous estimates indicate, according to a new study published this month in the Journal of Climate, a publication of the American Meteorological Society.
The research, conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), predicts a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise more than 9 degrees (F) by 2100, compared to a previous 2003 MIT study that forecast a rise of just over 4 degrees.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 forecast a temperature rise of anywhere from 2 to 11 degrees by 2100 based on a variety of different greenhouse-gas-emissions scenarios.
The projections in the MIT study were done using 400 applications of a computer model, which MIT says is the most comprehensive and sophisticated climate model to date. The model looks at the effects of economic activity as well as the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems.
The improved economic modeling and newer economic data (which gives a lower chance of reduced emissions) are among the major changes from the 2003 model application.
Unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, "there is significantly more risk than we previously estimated," says study co-author Ronald Prinn of MIT. "There's no way the world can or should take these risks."
"The results appear to be credible and quantify a certain unease many scientists have on the real magnitude of the climate problem ahead of us, one that is not adequately appreciated by most politicians," writes Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and an IPCC lead author, in an e-mail.
"The difficulty of dealing with inertia in human systems and infrastructure, and the lack of current incentives and a global approach to the problem means that reducing emissions will be a major challenge for humanity," he added.
Funding for the study came in part in grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and by sponsors of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.
"To my knowledge, this is indeed the most exhaustive end-to-end analysis of climate change impacts yet performed," notes Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University and also an IPCC author. "The results of the analysis are sobering, namely that we face a monumental challenge if we are to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system."
*************
Earlier this week, the National Climatic Data Center reported that the Earth's temperature for the first third of this year was the sixth-warmest on record. The global combined land and ocean surface temperture of 55.8 degrees F is tied with 2003 for the sixth-warmest January-April period, since records began in 1880. As for April, the global temperature of 56.7 degrees was the fifth-warmest April on record, and marked the 33rd consecutive April with an average surface temperature above the 20th-century average.
In the USA, April was cooler-than-average, just under 1 degree below the 20th-century average. Precipitation was above normal, with the central and southern USA experiencing the wettest conditions.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Memorial Day 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Is the Earth's Climate Warming or Cooling?
FROM: FOX News
By Phillip F. Schewe
As Congress scrutinizes new energy and climate legislation, many seem to be asking: Is it getting cooler or warmer?
The answer, according to a new study, is that we need to concentrate on the long-term trend, which points to an overall warming tendency over these past hundred years.
The great majority of climate scientists agree that it's getting warmer in many places around the world. The cause, they also agree, is heat-trapping carbon dioxide produced by human technology.
But how does this square with the observed fact that over the past decade world temperature has actually stayed the same, or even gone down?
Two scientists, Michael F. Wehner and David R. Easterling, show that such decade-long fluctuations are quite common in weather history. From day to day, season to season, and year to year, the weather shows great variability thanks to natural factors like capricious wind patterns and ocean currents.
Changes in climate -- that is, changes in typical weather conditions over long periods of time -- are more difficult to assess.
These short-term changes, say the scientists, must be differentiated from long-lasting, consequential trends in order to determine the role of human activities in shaping climate and to formulate industrial policy -- such as imposing a tax on carbon emissions.
Wehner, who works at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., says that the long-term trend really is toward a warmer planet, but that a single year, 1998, has temporarily thrown off the overall upward march in temperature.
In that year, an immense transfer of heat from the western to the eastern Pacific occurred: El Nino (Spanish for "Christ Child"), which often coincides with Christmas time. An El Nino event can have a major impact on rainfall patterns and temperatures over several continents.
El Nino and other weather factors can cause a short reversal in the warming trend for a year. A 10-year reversal is less likely, but still possible. Just as in throwing a coin, seven heads in a row is unexpected, but it does happen now and then.
In the journal Geophysical Review Letters, Wehner says that even a period of 20 years of modest cooling -- the equivalent of throwing 20 heads in a row -- would not reverse the scientific finding that long-term world temperature is trending upward; the trend is based on data now stretching back more than a century.
Does this mean that after 10 years of relative cooling the next few years will be particularly warm in order to make up the cool years?
No -- scientists can only say that the overall trend, over many years, is toward higher temperatures.
No unusually warm day in January or unusually cool day in July can negate the overall trend. Neither can a cooling decade negate a century-long warming trend.
In making policy decisions, argues Wehner and Easterling, don't let today's weather or even this year's weather influence your judgment. Concentrate on the long-term trend.
By Phillip F. Schewe
As Congress scrutinizes new energy and climate legislation, many seem to be asking: Is it getting cooler or warmer?
The answer, according to a new study, is that we need to concentrate on the long-term trend, which points to an overall warming tendency over these past hundred years.
The great majority of climate scientists agree that it's getting warmer in many places around the world. The cause, they also agree, is heat-trapping carbon dioxide produced by human technology.
But how does this square with the observed fact that over the past decade world temperature has actually stayed the same, or even gone down?
Two scientists, Michael F. Wehner and David R. Easterling, show that such decade-long fluctuations are quite common in weather history. From day to day, season to season, and year to year, the weather shows great variability thanks to natural factors like capricious wind patterns and ocean currents.
Changes in climate -- that is, changes in typical weather conditions over long periods of time -- are more difficult to assess.
These short-term changes, say the scientists, must be differentiated from long-lasting, consequential trends in order to determine the role of human activities in shaping climate and to formulate industrial policy -- such as imposing a tax on carbon emissions.
Wehner, who works at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., says that the long-term trend really is toward a warmer planet, but that a single year, 1998, has temporarily thrown off the overall upward march in temperature.
In that year, an immense transfer of heat from the western to the eastern Pacific occurred: El Nino (Spanish for "Christ Child"), which often coincides with Christmas time. An El Nino event can have a major impact on rainfall patterns and temperatures over several continents.
El Nino and other weather factors can cause a short reversal in the warming trend for a year. A 10-year reversal is less likely, but still possible. Just as in throwing a coin, seven heads in a row is unexpected, but it does happen now and then.
In the journal Geophysical Review Letters, Wehner says that even a period of 20 years of modest cooling -- the equivalent of throwing 20 heads in a row -- would not reverse the scientific finding that long-term world temperature is trending upward; the trend is based on data now stretching back more than a century.
Does this mean that after 10 years of relative cooling the next few years will be particularly warm in order to make up the cool years?
No -- scientists can only say that the overall trend, over many years, is toward higher temperatures.
No unusually warm day in January or unusually cool day in July can negate the overall trend. Neither can a cooling decade negate a century-long warming trend.
In making policy decisions, argues Wehner and Easterling, don't let today's weather or even this year's weather influence your judgment. Concentrate on the long-term trend.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
NOAA Predicts Normal or Below Normal Eastern Pacific Hurricane Season
FROM: NOAA
NOAA's Climate Prediction Center today announced that projected climate conditions point to a normal or below normal hurricane season in the Eastern Pacific this year. The outlook calls for a 40 percent probability of a below normal season, a 40 percent probability of a near normal season and a 20 percent probably of an above normal season.
Allowing for forecast uncertainties, seasonal hurricane forecasters estimate a 70 percent chance of 13 to 18 named storms, which includes 6 to 10 hurricanes, of which 2 to 5 will become major hurricanes (Category 3, 4 or 5 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale).
An average eastern Pacific hurricane season produces 15 to 16 named storms, with nine becoming hurricanes and four to five becoming major hurricanes. The Eastern Pacific hurricane season runs from May 15 through Nov. 30, with peak activity from July through September.
The main climate factors influencing this year’s Eastern Pacific outlook are the atmospheric conditions that have decreased hurricane activity over the Eastern Pacific Ocean since 1995 – and the possible development of El Niño.
“We expect either neutral or El Niño conditions this season,” said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at the Climate Prediction Center. “During this low-activity era, neutral conditions increase the chance of a below-normal season, while El Niño increases the chance of a near normal season. If significant El Niño impacts develop, as a few models suggest, we could even see an above-normal hurricane season for the Eastern Pacific region.”
The outlook is a general guide to the overall seasonal hurricane activity. It does not predict whether, where or when any of these storms may hit land.
Eastern Pacific tropical storms most often track westward over open waters, sometimes reaching Hawaii and beyond. However, some occasionally head toward the northeast and may bring rainfall to the arid southwestern United States during the summer months. Also, during any given season, one or two tropical storms can affect western Mexico or Central America. Residents, businesses and government agencies of coastal and near-coastal regions should always prepare prior to each and every hurricane season regardless of the seasonal hurricane outlook.
NOAA's Climate Prediction Center today announced that projected climate conditions point to a normal or below normal hurricane season in the Eastern Pacific this year. The outlook calls for a 40 percent probability of a below normal season, a 40 percent probability of a near normal season and a 20 percent probably of an above normal season.
Allowing for forecast uncertainties, seasonal hurricane forecasters estimate a 70 percent chance of 13 to 18 named storms, which includes 6 to 10 hurricanes, of which 2 to 5 will become major hurricanes (Category 3, 4 or 5 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale).
An average eastern Pacific hurricane season produces 15 to 16 named storms, with nine becoming hurricanes and four to five becoming major hurricanes. The Eastern Pacific hurricane season runs from May 15 through Nov. 30, with peak activity from July through September.
The main climate factors influencing this year’s Eastern Pacific outlook are the atmospheric conditions that have decreased hurricane activity over the Eastern Pacific Ocean since 1995 – and the possible development of El Niño.
“We expect either neutral or El Niño conditions this season,” said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at the Climate Prediction Center. “During this low-activity era, neutral conditions increase the chance of a below-normal season, while El Niño increases the chance of a near normal season. If significant El Niño impacts develop, as a few models suggest, we could even see an above-normal hurricane season for the Eastern Pacific region.”
The outlook is a general guide to the overall seasonal hurricane activity. It does not predict whether, where or when any of these storms may hit land.
Eastern Pacific tropical storms most often track westward over open waters, sometimes reaching Hawaii and beyond. However, some occasionally head toward the northeast and may bring rainfall to the arid southwestern United States during the summer months. Also, during any given season, one or two tropical storms can affect western Mexico or Central America. Residents, businesses and government agencies of coastal and near-coastal regions should always prepare prior to each and every hurricane season regardless of the seasonal hurricane outlook.
Friday, May 22, 2009
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions drop in 2008
FROM: USA Today
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — There is a positive note to the country's economic woes and last summer's $4-per-gallon gasoline: The nation in 2008 had a record decline in the amount of climate-changing carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
The government reported Wednesday that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions declined by 2.8% last year compared to 2007, the largest annual drop since the government began regular reporting of greenhouse gas pollution.
The department's Energy Information Administration attributed the decline to a 2.2% drop in energy consumption, largely because of high gasoline and diesel prices last summer and the sharp economic decline in the last half of the year.
The government figures were released as members of a House committee continued a week-long struggle to craft a sweeping climate bill that would impose limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which is before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, calls for cutting greenhouse emissions by 17% over the next 11 years and by 83% by midcentury.
The committee's Democrats have fended off repeated attempts by Republicans to kill the bill, or at least have it saddled with provisions that would make it difficult to implement. GOP lawmakers argue that the bill would result in sharp increases in energy costs that would harm consumers and the economy in general.
Democrats have sought to fashion the bill in ways that mitigate sharp consumer energy cost increases and their impact on energy-intensive sectors of the economy such as electricity production and industries that could face disadvantages against foreign competitors.
A number of unsuccessful GOP amendments would have halted the bill's emission reduction mandate if it caused increases in electricity rates, unemployment or gasoline prices.
The debate was expected to go late into the night, as lawmakers offered dozens of amendments to the 946-page bill. Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has said he wants the committee to advance the legislation by week's end.
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — There is a positive note to the country's economic woes and last summer's $4-per-gallon gasoline: The nation in 2008 had a record decline in the amount of climate-changing carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
The government reported Wednesday that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions declined by 2.8% last year compared to 2007, the largest annual drop since the government began regular reporting of greenhouse gas pollution.
The department's Energy Information Administration attributed the decline to a 2.2% drop in energy consumption, largely because of high gasoline and diesel prices last summer and the sharp economic decline in the last half of the year.
The government figures were released as members of a House committee continued a week-long struggle to craft a sweeping climate bill that would impose limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which is before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, calls for cutting greenhouse emissions by 17% over the next 11 years and by 83% by midcentury.
The committee's Democrats have fended off repeated attempts by Republicans to kill the bill, or at least have it saddled with provisions that would make it difficult to implement. GOP lawmakers argue that the bill would result in sharp increases in energy costs that would harm consumers and the economy in general.
Democrats have sought to fashion the bill in ways that mitigate sharp consumer energy cost increases and their impact on energy-intensive sectors of the economy such as electricity production and industries that could face disadvantages against foreign competitors.
A number of unsuccessful GOP amendments would have halted the bill's emission reduction mandate if it caused increases in electricity rates, unemployment or gasoline prices.
The debate was expected to go late into the night, as lawmakers offered dozens of amendments to the 946-page bill. Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has said he wants the committee to advance the legislation by week's end.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
15 L.A. Beaches Score F's on Annual Report Card
FROM: KTLA TV
LOS ANGELES -- Los Angeles County had the worst overall beach water quality last year in California, according to the 19th annual "Beach Report Card" released by Heal the Bay.
Only 70 percent of beach sites in the county earned A or B grades -- a state-low total for the fourth year and nearly even with last year's 71 percent tally, according to the environmental group.
Fifteen beaches in Los Angeles County received year-round F grades, with a half-dozen of those ranking on the organization's annual "Beach Bummer" list of the most polluted sites in the state.
The report lists those beaches as:
-- Avalon Harbor Beach on Catalina Island;
-- Cabrillo Beach harborside;
-- Pismo Beach Pier in San Luis Obispo County;
-- Colorado Lagoon;
-- Santa Monica Municipal Pier;
-- City of Long Beach at LA River outlet;
-- Poche Beach in Orange County;
-- Surfrider Beach at Malibu Creek;
-- Campbell Cove State Park Beach in Sonoma County
; and-- Doheny Beach at San Juan Creek in Orange County.
Statewide, 262 of 307 locations -- 85 percent of the beaches -- received A and B grades during dry weather, with just 32 of the beaches monitored statewide receiving D or F grades last summer, according to Heal the Bay.
Overall, Orange County beaches recorded water quality grades that were well above the state average, according to the group. Some 97 percent of 103 monitoring locations got an A or B during the summer, as well as 93 percent for year-round dry weather.
Heal the Bay officials said one of the reasons Los Angeles County lags in water quality is that its monitoring agencies collect samples directly in front of flowing storm drains and creeks, where polluted runoff often pools.
But many of Los Angeles County's most polluted beaches, including Avalon Harbor, Cabrillo Beach and several sites in Long Beach, do not sit near storm drains, according to the group.
The group noted that Long Beach's water quality overall is poor because it sits at the terminus of the Los Angeles River, but that it showed its best water quality in the past three years.
For the first time, Heal the Bay also handed out perfect "A+" grades, with 79 beaches never exceeding bacterial standards. In Los Angeles County, A+ sites included Will Rogers State Beach on Pacific Coast Highway, Dockweiler State Beach at the Imperial Highway drain, Manhattan State Beach at 40th Street and Portuguese Bend Cove in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Eighty-six percent of Santa Monica Bay beaches -- from Leo Carrillo to Palos Verdes -- got A or B grades during the high-traffic summer beach-going season, down slightly from last year but up dramatically from annual overages over the past six years, according to the report.
The report card on coastal water quality is based on daily and weekly samples taken from sites along the state's coastline.Read the entire report on • healthebay.org
LOS ANGELES -- Los Angeles County had the worst overall beach water quality last year in California, according to the 19th annual "Beach Report Card" released by Heal the Bay.
Only 70 percent of beach sites in the county earned A or B grades -- a state-low total for the fourth year and nearly even with last year's 71 percent tally, according to the environmental group.
Fifteen beaches in Los Angeles County received year-round F grades, with a half-dozen of those ranking on the organization's annual "Beach Bummer" list of the most polluted sites in the state.
The report lists those beaches as:
-- Avalon Harbor Beach on Catalina Island;
-- Cabrillo Beach harborside;
-- Pismo Beach Pier in San Luis Obispo County;
-- Colorado Lagoon;
-- Santa Monica Municipal Pier;
-- City of Long Beach at LA River outlet;
-- Poche Beach in Orange County;
-- Surfrider Beach at Malibu Creek;
-- Campbell Cove State Park Beach in Sonoma County
; and-- Doheny Beach at San Juan Creek in Orange County.
Statewide, 262 of 307 locations -- 85 percent of the beaches -- received A and B grades during dry weather, with just 32 of the beaches monitored statewide receiving D or F grades last summer, according to Heal the Bay.
Overall, Orange County beaches recorded water quality grades that were well above the state average, according to the group. Some 97 percent of 103 monitoring locations got an A or B during the summer, as well as 93 percent for year-round dry weather.
Heal the Bay officials said one of the reasons Los Angeles County lags in water quality is that its monitoring agencies collect samples directly in front of flowing storm drains and creeks, where polluted runoff often pools.
But many of Los Angeles County's most polluted beaches, including Avalon Harbor, Cabrillo Beach and several sites in Long Beach, do not sit near storm drains, according to the group.
The group noted that Long Beach's water quality overall is poor because it sits at the terminus of the Los Angeles River, but that it showed its best water quality in the past three years.
For the first time, Heal the Bay also handed out perfect "A+" grades, with 79 beaches never exceeding bacterial standards. In Los Angeles County, A+ sites included Will Rogers State Beach on Pacific Coast Highway, Dockweiler State Beach at the Imperial Highway drain, Manhattan State Beach at 40th Street and Portuguese Bend Cove in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Eighty-six percent of Santa Monica Bay beaches -- from Leo Carrillo to Palos Verdes -- got A or B grades during the high-traffic summer beach-going season, down slightly from last year but up dramatically from annual overages over the past six years, according to the report.
The report card on coastal water quality is based on daily and weekly samples taken from sites along the state's coastline.Read the entire report on • healthebay.org
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
NOAA: Fifth Warmest April for Globe
FROM: NOAA
The combined average global land and ocean surface temperatures for April 2009 ranked fifth warmest since worldwide records began in 1880, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
The analyses in NCDC’s global reports are based on preliminary data, which are subject to revision. Additional quality control is applied to the data when late reports are received several weeks after the end of the month and as increased scientific methods improve NCDC’s processing algorithms.
Temperature Highlights
- April’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.06 degree F above the 20th century average of 56.7degrees F. The most significant warmth occurred in northern and northeastern Asia, Europe, and much of the planet’s southern oceans.
- The global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 55.8 degrees F is tied with 2003 for the sixth-warmest January-through-April period on record. This value is 0.97 degree F above the 20th century average.
- The global land surface temperature for April was 1.80 degrees F degrees above the 20th century average of 46.5 degrees F degrees.
Global Highlights
- Arctic sea ice coverage of 5.6 million square miles was the tenth-lowest April extent since satellite records began in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. This value is 2.8 percent below the 1979-2000 average. In contrast, the April Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent of 3.2 million square miles was 13.5 percent above the 1979-2000 average. April is early in the melt season for Arctic sea ice, and early in the growth season for Antarctic sea ice.
- Based on NOAA satellite observations, April snow cover extent was below the 1967-2009 average for the Northern Hemisphere. This marked the hemisphere’s sixth consecutive April with below-average snow cover extent. Warmer-than-normal conditions over Eurasia contributed to that region’s fourth-smallest April snow cover extent during the period. North American snow cover extent was slightly above average during the month.
The combined average global land and ocean surface temperatures for April 2009 ranked fifth warmest since worldwide records began in 1880, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
The analyses in NCDC’s global reports are based on preliminary data, which are subject to revision. Additional quality control is applied to the data when late reports are received several weeks after the end of the month and as increased scientific methods improve NCDC’s processing algorithms.
Temperature Highlights
- April’s combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 1.06 degree F above the 20th century average of 56.7degrees F. The most significant warmth occurred in northern and northeastern Asia, Europe, and much of the planet’s southern oceans.
- The global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 55.8 degrees F is tied with 2003 for the sixth-warmest January-through-April period on record. This value is 0.97 degree F above the 20th century average.
- The global land surface temperature for April was 1.80 degrees F degrees above the 20th century average of 46.5 degrees F degrees.
Global Highlights
- Arctic sea ice coverage of 5.6 million square miles was the tenth-lowest April extent since satellite records began in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. This value is 2.8 percent below the 1979-2000 average. In contrast, the April Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent of 3.2 million square miles was 13.5 percent above the 1979-2000 average. April is early in the melt season for Arctic sea ice, and early in the growth season for Antarctic sea ice.
- Based on NOAA satellite observations, April snow cover extent was below the 1967-2009 average for the Northern Hemisphere. This marked the hemisphere’s sixth consecutive April with below-average snow cover extent. Warmer-than-normal conditions over Eurasia contributed to that region’s fourth-smallest April snow cover extent during the period. North American snow cover extent was slightly above average during the month.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
In the Owens Valley, resentment again flows with the water
From: Los Angeles Times
L.A.'s Department of Water and Power is prospecting again for land and water rights in the valley. Unlike past battles, the focus is on real estate locals say is needed for commerce along Highway 395.
By Louis Sahagun
Reporting from Lone Pine, Calif. -- The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is quietly prospecting once again for land and water rights in the Owens Valley, sparking tense disputes among residents over the agency's influence on their economic stability.
Unlike previous battles between Owens Valley residents and the DWP, which focused on the environmental and economic damage caused by L.A.'s pumping of local water supplies, the current campaign seeks to break the agency's grip on land the locals say is needed for commerce, hospitals, parking and affordable housing along a 112-mile stretch of Highway 395 east of the Sierra Nevada.
"Sustainable communities -- that's what they are sucking out of this place along with our water," said Scott Palamar, a photographer who moved to Lone Pine in July after his Malibu home was destroyed by a brush fire in 2007. "The DWP only wants just enough infrastructure to support its own operations. Beyond that, they don't seem to care."
The trouble started when a local real estate broker learned that the DWP, which already owns 25% of the Owens Valley floor, plans to buy 100 acres of privately held stream-side property just west of Independence, the Inyo County seat, for an estimated $4 million to $5 million.
On May 6, a group of Owens Valley residents sent a petition to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles City Council urging them to force the DWP to compensate for the loss of this private land by releasing an equal amount of its own holdings elsewhere.
"They are creating a net loss of private land in Inyo County and destroying our towns in the process," said Jenifer Castaneda, a Lone Pine real estate broker and community activist who helped write the petition. "If they are going to take what little available private land there is left in the valley out of circulation, they should make an equal amount of land available in communities that are struggling to survive."
"I understand their sentiments" and "I'm open to having conversations" about releasing property, DWP General Manger David Nahai said in an interview.
But he also pointed out that three years of drought, cutbacks in state water allocations and rationing and its $500-million dust-mitigation project at Owens Lake have left the agency trying to cope with "a seriously overburdened water supply."
The DWP already receives water from the 100-acre parcel it is attempting to purchase. By acquiring ownership of the land and its water rights, the agency would maintain permanent, uninterrupted access to the water and prevent other parties from tapping it for development or selling it elsewhere.
In the meantime, the communities of Olancha, Lone Pine, Independence and Big Pine continue to deteriorate, with most of their developable land controlled by the DWP.
In Independence, a town of 500, the sole grocery store recently closed because its customer base had dwindled. About 15 miles south in downtown Lone Pine, the DWP last summer demolished several buildings it owned on a single block, leaving behind three gravel-covered lots locals have dubbed "the missing teeth of Main Street."
"That lot was an auto parts store. That one nearby was a beauty shop, and that one over there used to be a Radio Shack," Castaneda said on a recent weekday, pointing to the empty parcels. "Now, people are wondering: What is the critical mass needed to sustain this community?"
Twelve years ago, the DWP agreed to relinquish 75 acres in the Owens Valley for residential and commercial uses, and the county amended its general plan to ensure that land exchanges did not result in a net loss of tax base or revenues.
So far, however, only a handful of lots from those 75 acres have changed hands because the DWP tends to set minimum bids far above market value.
Nahai acknowledged the problem: "We are right now reappraising the 75 acres with a goal of bringing them to market soon in a successful auction."
The Owens Valley has been a colony of sorts since the early 1900s, when L.A. began pumping so much water via the Los Angeles aqueduct system that it was all but impossible for the region's early farmers and ranchers to make a living -- a scandal dramatized in the classic 1974 film "Chinatown."
Owens Valley residents and the DWP have been at odds ever since over the effects of L.A.'s water use on the landscape. But the dissension flared anew when Palamar and Castaneda revealed the agency's offer on 100 acres at Oak Creek owned by Alan Bell of Woodland Hills and his brother, Robert Bell of Bishop.
The two DWP critics were publicly chastised by an Inyo County supervisor for disclosing details of the transaction.
Some of Robert Bell's neighbors say he should subdivide the property to increase its value. Others argue the DWP is offering too little for it.
Robert Bell, who was a construction worker for the DWP until he won a $9-million lottery jackpot in 1988, declined to comment on the land or his decision to sell it, citing confidentiality agreements. "I can talk about it later," he said. "Not right now."
County officials and residents say the DWP also has expressed interest in acquiring an 80-acre site with water rights in Big Pine, as well as at least one parcel with water rights adjacent to the Bell brothers' property.
The last time the DWP bought a chunk of land larger than 100 acres with water rights was in 1986, a department spokesman said.
Three weeks ago, Nahai said he visited a group of Owens Valley cattle ranchers who receive significant DWP water allotments, "to talk with them about our dire water situation."
The last time the DWP curtailed water allotments for valley ranching and agriculture was during the drought of 1991.
Some residents view Castaneda and Palamar and dozens of others who signed their petition as heroes for daring to take their case to the Inyo County Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles City Hall.
Said Inyo County Supervisor Marty Fortney, who operates a camping and fishing resort on land leased from the DWP: "If they can get DWP off the stick to release some of its land at a reasonable price, then more power to them."
"But forcing the DWP to do anything around here is like trying to squeeze a bull through a window -- probably ain't going to happen," he said with a smile. "In this country, the DWP is God, and it makes the rules."
Castaneda agreed -- to a point.
"If people don't speak up," she said, "there won't be any businesses or livelihoods left to fight for."
L.A.'s Department of Water and Power is prospecting again for land and water rights in the valley. Unlike past battles, the focus is on real estate locals say is needed for commerce along Highway 395.
By Louis Sahagun
Reporting from Lone Pine, Calif. -- The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is quietly prospecting once again for land and water rights in the Owens Valley, sparking tense disputes among residents over the agency's influence on their economic stability.
Unlike previous battles between Owens Valley residents and the DWP, which focused on the environmental and economic damage caused by L.A.'s pumping of local water supplies, the current campaign seeks to break the agency's grip on land the locals say is needed for commerce, hospitals, parking and affordable housing along a 112-mile stretch of Highway 395 east of the Sierra Nevada.
"Sustainable communities -- that's what they are sucking out of this place along with our water," said Scott Palamar, a photographer who moved to Lone Pine in July after his Malibu home was destroyed by a brush fire in 2007. "The DWP only wants just enough infrastructure to support its own operations. Beyond that, they don't seem to care."
The trouble started when a local real estate broker learned that the DWP, which already owns 25% of the Owens Valley floor, plans to buy 100 acres of privately held stream-side property just west of Independence, the Inyo County seat, for an estimated $4 million to $5 million.
On May 6, a group of Owens Valley residents sent a petition to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Los Angeles City Council urging them to force the DWP to compensate for the loss of this private land by releasing an equal amount of its own holdings elsewhere.
"They are creating a net loss of private land in Inyo County and destroying our towns in the process," said Jenifer Castaneda, a Lone Pine real estate broker and community activist who helped write the petition. "If they are going to take what little available private land there is left in the valley out of circulation, they should make an equal amount of land available in communities that are struggling to survive."
"I understand their sentiments" and "I'm open to having conversations" about releasing property, DWP General Manger David Nahai said in an interview.
But he also pointed out that three years of drought, cutbacks in state water allocations and rationing and its $500-million dust-mitigation project at Owens Lake have left the agency trying to cope with "a seriously overburdened water supply."
The DWP already receives water from the 100-acre parcel it is attempting to purchase. By acquiring ownership of the land and its water rights, the agency would maintain permanent, uninterrupted access to the water and prevent other parties from tapping it for development or selling it elsewhere.
In the meantime, the communities of Olancha, Lone Pine, Independence and Big Pine continue to deteriorate, with most of their developable land controlled by the DWP.
In Independence, a town of 500, the sole grocery store recently closed because its customer base had dwindled. About 15 miles south in downtown Lone Pine, the DWP last summer demolished several buildings it owned on a single block, leaving behind three gravel-covered lots locals have dubbed "the missing teeth of Main Street."
"That lot was an auto parts store. That one nearby was a beauty shop, and that one over there used to be a Radio Shack," Castaneda said on a recent weekday, pointing to the empty parcels. "Now, people are wondering: What is the critical mass needed to sustain this community?"
Twelve years ago, the DWP agreed to relinquish 75 acres in the Owens Valley for residential and commercial uses, and the county amended its general plan to ensure that land exchanges did not result in a net loss of tax base or revenues.
So far, however, only a handful of lots from those 75 acres have changed hands because the DWP tends to set minimum bids far above market value.
Nahai acknowledged the problem: "We are right now reappraising the 75 acres with a goal of bringing them to market soon in a successful auction."
The Owens Valley has been a colony of sorts since the early 1900s, when L.A. began pumping so much water via the Los Angeles aqueduct system that it was all but impossible for the region's early farmers and ranchers to make a living -- a scandal dramatized in the classic 1974 film "Chinatown."
Owens Valley residents and the DWP have been at odds ever since over the effects of L.A.'s water use on the landscape. But the dissension flared anew when Palamar and Castaneda revealed the agency's offer on 100 acres at Oak Creek owned by Alan Bell of Woodland Hills and his brother, Robert Bell of Bishop.
The two DWP critics were publicly chastised by an Inyo County supervisor for disclosing details of the transaction.
Some of Robert Bell's neighbors say he should subdivide the property to increase its value. Others argue the DWP is offering too little for it.
Robert Bell, who was a construction worker for the DWP until he won a $9-million lottery jackpot in 1988, declined to comment on the land or his decision to sell it, citing confidentiality agreements. "I can talk about it later," he said. "Not right now."
County officials and residents say the DWP also has expressed interest in acquiring an 80-acre site with water rights in Big Pine, as well as at least one parcel with water rights adjacent to the Bell brothers' property.
The last time the DWP bought a chunk of land larger than 100 acres with water rights was in 1986, a department spokesman said.
Three weeks ago, Nahai said he visited a group of Owens Valley cattle ranchers who receive significant DWP water allotments, "to talk with them about our dire water situation."
The last time the DWP curtailed water allotments for valley ranching and agriculture was during the drought of 1991.
Some residents view Castaneda and Palamar and dozens of others who signed their petition as heroes for daring to take their case to the Inyo County Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles City Hall.
Said Inyo County Supervisor Marty Fortney, who operates a camping and fishing resort on land leased from the DWP: "If they can get DWP off the stick to release some of its land at a reasonable price, then more power to them."
"But forcing the DWP to do anything around here is like trying to squeeze a bull through a window -- probably ain't going to happen," he said with a smile. "In this country, the DWP is God, and it makes the rules."
Castaneda agreed -- to a point.
"If people don't speak up," she said, "there won't be any businesses or livelihoods left to fight for."
Monday, May 18, 2009
A giant leap toward space-based solar power
FROM: Los Angeles Times
Pacific Gas & Electric has signed a contract to buy power from an ambitious start-up that plans to launch solar power collectors into orbit to back energy as radio waves. Pie in the sky?
By Marc Lifsher
Reporting from Sacramento -- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for decades has generated power for its customers by splitting atoms, burning natural gas and capturing the force of falling water. More recently, the San Francisco utility began turning to the sun, wind, boiling geysers and even fermented cow manure to produce electricity.
Now, PG&E wants to turn to outer space.
A Manhattan Beach start-up called Solaren Corp. seeks to launch an array of giant solar power collectors into orbit 23,000 miles above Fresno and beam the energy to Earth. PG&E has signed a contract to buy the power -- if Solaren can make the technology work.
The proposal is a potential energy game-changer, supporters say. But, critics dismiss it as pie in the sky.
The scheme highlights a growing dispute as utilities struggle to meet ambitious requirements for energy from renewable sources: Should electricity come from big, bold projects such as huge desert fields of sunlight-reflecting mirrors or should it come from smaller, close-to-the-user efforts such as rooftop solar panels? Should big power companies handle electron delivery or do-it-yourselfers?
Solaren won't discuss the details or costs of its plan, other than to give a ballpark price tag at more than $2 billion, to generate enough electricity for 150,000 homes across much of Northern and Central California. It has asked utility regulators to keep the information confidential, for now.
But executives say that by 2016 they can put together the technology to harness energy that constantly bathes Earth from 93 million miles away.
"If our numbers are anywhere near where we think they will be, we will be able to provide power at a cost that's comparable with anything on Earth, that is much cleaner and all from space," says Gary Spirnak, Solaren's chief executive.
Spirnak points to a 2007 study by the National Security Space Office as evidence that a such a space-based power system is feasible:
"There is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a space-based solar power capability."
He acknowledges that raising more than $2 billion during a recession won't be easy, but says having a guaranteed power purchase agreement with PG&E should carry some weight with potential investors.
The Public Utilities Commission is reviewing Solaren's contract with PG&E, a unit of PG&E Corp. Regulators are charged with ensuring that the deal helps the utility meet a requirement to get one-fifth of its power from renewable sources by 2012. PG&E has asked for a ruling before Oct. 29.
Consumer advocates and more Earth-bound proponents of renewable energy are extremely skeptical.
California will be unable to meet its looming 20% renewable energy requirement, let alone a more ambitious 30% goal by 2030, if utilities and regulators continually embrace expensive, flashy and unproven technologies, they say. Policymakers, instead, should stick with reliable alternative sources -- such as geothermal, wind and centralized solar, sunlight concentrated by mirrors -- that have been operating commercially for decades.
"There are a lot of speculative plays," says V. John White, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology in Sacramento. "We have a lot of PowerPoints floating around that I don't think will turn into power plants."
The concept behind space-based solar power is simple, Solaren says.
Four or five rocket launches would be needed to put enough solar collectors into a stationary orbit to produce 200 megawatts of power, about half the output of a modern natural-gas-fired plant. The solar energy would be converted radio waves and beamed to a receiving station in Fresno, leaving unscathed any birds or airplanes that get in the way of the highly diffused beam. There, it would be converted to either alternating or direct electric current and dispatched to customers via high-voltage transmission lines.
Spirnak acknowledges that nothing on this scale has been attempted, but the basic technology is proven. Commercial communications satellites have been powered by solar energy for more than four decades. The satellites use the sun's power, available 24 hours a day in space, to make electricity. The electricity is turned into radio waves to bounce television, telephone and other signals around the globe.
Experience with larger scale, experimental radio transmissions converted to electrical power is limited, PG&E wrote in the regulatory filing. In 1975, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory transmitted 34 kilowatts of energy about a mile. Last year, a former JPL scientist, John Mankins, transmitted a small amount of power generated by ground-based solar cells 92 miles between two Hawaiian islands.
"The challenge," PG&E spokesman Jonathan Marshal says, is "putting enough hardware up in space and doing it economically."
Solaren and PG&E emphasize that ratepayers won't pay a penny of Solaren's costs until the company starts streaming power into their homes and businesses. PG&E isn't investing in the project up front, agreeing only to buy power once it's flowing, common practice in the utility business.
"There's no risk to our customers. They'll pay only for the power that's delivered," Marshal says. "We're not investing in the project or paying advance fees."
Consumer advocates say they're heartened that PG&E isn't asking customers to pay up front for what might turn out to be little more than a science fiction fantasy.
"We think the chance of this company ever getting this solar farm -- literally and figuratively -- off the ground is quite remote," says Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based group that monitors investor-owned utilities.
PG&E, which gets 12% of its power from renewable sources, is grandstanding when it touts contracts to buy space power, Toney says. It should be putting "more focus into local renewables closer to home," such as placing solar panels on the roofs of homes and businesses, he says.
Solaren's plan is a "very serious" effort to put an admittedly "trial size" power plant in space, says Frederick H. Pickel, an energy consultant and engineering economist in Los Angeles.
"If this works, it changes the whole game," he says. "If they manage to reduce the cost sufficiently for space-based solar generation, the electric game changes, the natural gas game changes and, perhaps, even the oil game changes."
Pacific Gas & Electric has signed a contract to buy power from an ambitious start-up that plans to launch solar power collectors into orbit to back energy as radio waves. Pie in the sky?
By Marc Lifsher
Reporting from Sacramento -- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for decades has generated power for its customers by splitting atoms, burning natural gas and capturing the force of falling water. More recently, the San Francisco utility began turning to the sun, wind, boiling geysers and even fermented cow manure to produce electricity.
Now, PG&E wants to turn to outer space.
A Manhattan Beach start-up called Solaren Corp. seeks to launch an array of giant solar power collectors into orbit 23,000 miles above Fresno and beam the energy to Earth. PG&E has signed a contract to buy the power -- if Solaren can make the technology work.
The proposal is a potential energy game-changer, supporters say. But, critics dismiss it as pie in the sky.
The scheme highlights a growing dispute as utilities struggle to meet ambitious requirements for energy from renewable sources: Should electricity come from big, bold projects such as huge desert fields of sunlight-reflecting mirrors or should it come from smaller, close-to-the-user efforts such as rooftop solar panels? Should big power companies handle electron delivery or do-it-yourselfers?
Solaren won't discuss the details or costs of its plan, other than to give a ballpark price tag at more than $2 billion, to generate enough electricity for 150,000 homes across much of Northern and Central California. It has asked utility regulators to keep the information confidential, for now.
But executives say that by 2016 they can put together the technology to harness energy that constantly bathes Earth from 93 million miles away.
"If our numbers are anywhere near where we think they will be, we will be able to provide power at a cost that's comparable with anything on Earth, that is much cleaner and all from space," says Gary Spirnak, Solaren's chief executive.
Spirnak points to a 2007 study by the National Security Space Office as evidence that a such a space-based power system is feasible:
"There is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a space-based solar power capability."
He acknowledges that raising more than $2 billion during a recession won't be easy, but says having a guaranteed power purchase agreement with PG&E should carry some weight with potential investors.
The Public Utilities Commission is reviewing Solaren's contract with PG&E, a unit of PG&E Corp. Regulators are charged with ensuring that the deal helps the utility meet a requirement to get one-fifth of its power from renewable sources by 2012. PG&E has asked for a ruling before Oct. 29.
Consumer advocates and more Earth-bound proponents of renewable energy are extremely skeptical.
California will be unable to meet its looming 20% renewable energy requirement, let alone a more ambitious 30% goal by 2030, if utilities and regulators continually embrace expensive, flashy and unproven technologies, they say. Policymakers, instead, should stick with reliable alternative sources -- such as geothermal, wind and centralized solar, sunlight concentrated by mirrors -- that have been operating commercially for decades.
"There are a lot of speculative plays," says V. John White, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology in Sacramento. "We have a lot of PowerPoints floating around that I don't think will turn into power plants."
The concept behind space-based solar power is simple, Solaren says.
Four or five rocket launches would be needed to put enough solar collectors into a stationary orbit to produce 200 megawatts of power, about half the output of a modern natural-gas-fired plant. The solar energy would be converted radio waves and beamed to a receiving station in Fresno, leaving unscathed any birds or airplanes that get in the way of the highly diffused beam. There, it would be converted to either alternating or direct electric current and dispatched to customers via high-voltage transmission lines.
Spirnak acknowledges that nothing on this scale has been attempted, but the basic technology is proven. Commercial communications satellites have been powered by solar energy for more than four decades. The satellites use the sun's power, available 24 hours a day in space, to make electricity. The electricity is turned into radio waves to bounce television, telephone and other signals around the globe.
Experience with larger scale, experimental radio transmissions converted to electrical power is limited, PG&E wrote in the regulatory filing. In 1975, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory transmitted 34 kilowatts of energy about a mile. Last year, a former JPL scientist, John Mankins, transmitted a small amount of power generated by ground-based solar cells 92 miles between two Hawaiian islands.
"The challenge," PG&E spokesman Jonathan Marshal says, is "putting enough hardware up in space and doing it economically."
Solaren and PG&E emphasize that ratepayers won't pay a penny of Solaren's costs until the company starts streaming power into their homes and businesses. PG&E isn't investing in the project up front, agreeing only to buy power once it's flowing, common practice in the utility business.
"There's no risk to our customers. They'll pay only for the power that's delivered," Marshal says. "We're not investing in the project or paying advance fees."
Consumer advocates say they're heartened that PG&E isn't asking customers to pay up front for what might turn out to be little more than a science fiction fantasy.
"We think the chance of this company ever getting this solar farm -- literally and figuratively -- off the ground is quite remote," says Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco-based group that monitors investor-owned utilities.
PG&E, which gets 12% of its power from renewable sources, is grandstanding when it touts contracts to buy space power, Toney says. It should be putting "more focus into local renewables closer to home," such as placing solar panels on the roofs of homes and businesses, he says.
Solaren's plan is a "very serious" effort to put an admittedly "trial size" power plant in space, says Frederick H. Pickel, an energy consultant and engineering economist in Los Angeles.
"If this works, it changes the whole game," he says. "If they manage to reduce the cost sufficiently for space-based solar generation, the electric game changes, the natural gas game changes and, perhaps, even the oil game changes."
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Drought Monitor as of May 12th, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Desert Sunrise - Part II
Friday, May 15, 2009
Desert Sunrise
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Twisters here not uncommon
FROM: San Diego Union-Tribune
By Robert Krier Union-Tribune Staff Writer
Twisters can't be forecast weeks in advance, but scientists know where and when the odds are best to find them.
The most likely spot for a twister is in tornado alley, from Texas to the Dakotas, and the most likely time is May and June. That's when warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico tends to collide with cool, drier air coming off the Rockies.
When those contrasting air masses meet and other atmospheric forces align, the kind of rotation needed for a tornado can be created.
In Southern California, the potential for tornadoes is far less, but twisters are much more common here than most people think. From 1950 through 2008, there were 146 reported tornadoes in Orange, San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
“Basically, we're getting two tornadoes a year in Southern California,” National Weather Service forecaster Steve Vanderburg said. “And that doesn't take into account tornadoes that probably weren't reported in the '50s and '60s, when areas were sparesly populated.”
Part of Riverside County is considered a kind of mini tornado alley. Many twisters occur in the Elsinore Convergence Zone, where sea breezes split and go around the Santa Ana Mountains to the west, then reconverge on the east side in a belt from Lake Elsinore to the Hemet/San Jacinto region. When those air masses meet in combination with certain stormy conditions, the uplift and rotation needed for a tornado can occur.
On May 22, a tornado that was later classified as an EF2 (with winds between 111 and 135 mph) hit near March Air Force Base. It flipped a big rig on the freeway and knocked over six railroad cars. The driver of the rig nearly died; he would have been the first fatality due to a tornado in California history.
Tornadoes aren't as common in San Diego County, but they aren't unheard of, either.
Vanderburg said there have been eight reported twisters in the county since 2000, and six of those did damage. The most destructive hit Poway on Nov. 10, 2000, causing an estimated $73,000 in losses.
The most recent twister in the county occurred Sept. 22, 2007, when a waterspout moved ashore at Cardiff State Beach. It blew over some tents but did no other damage.
Waterspouts are weak spinning columns of air over water. They are fairly common and become classified as tornadoes if they move ashore. Ten to 20 are spotted off the county coast each year, but they rarely reach land.
Most local waterspouts are caused by another type of convergence. Air masses that hit the offshore islands during storms can split and then meet on the leeward side.
By Robert Krier Union-Tribune Staff Writer
Twisters can't be forecast weeks in advance, but scientists know where and when the odds are best to find them.
The most likely spot for a twister is in tornado alley, from Texas to the Dakotas, and the most likely time is May and June. That's when warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico tends to collide with cool, drier air coming off the Rockies.
When those contrasting air masses meet and other atmospheric forces align, the kind of rotation needed for a tornado can be created.
In Southern California, the potential for tornadoes is far less, but twisters are much more common here than most people think. From 1950 through 2008, there were 146 reported tornadoes in Orange, San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
“Basically, we're getting two tornadoes a year in Southern California,” National Weather Service forecaster Steve Vanderburg said. “And that doesn't take into account tornadoes that probably weren't reported in the '50s and '60s, when areas were sparesly populated.”
Part of Riverside County is considered a kind of mini tornado alley. Many twisters occur in the Elsinore Convergence Zone, where sea breezes split and go around the Santa Ana Mountains to the west, then reconverge on the east side in a belt from Lake Elsinore to the Hemet/San Jacinto region. When those air masses meet in combination with certain stormy conditions, the uplift and rotation needed for a tornado can occur.
On May 22, a tornado that was later classified as an EF2 (with winds between 111 and 135 mph) hit near March Air Force Base. It flipped a big rig on the freeway and knocked over six railroad cars. The driver of the rig nearly died; he would have been the first fatality due to a tornado in California history.
Tornadoes aren't as common in San Diego County, but they aren't unheard of, either.
Vanderburg said there have been eight reported twisters in the county since 2000, and six of those did damage. The most destructive hit Poway on Nov. 10, 2000, causing an estimated $73,000 in losses.
The most recent twister in the county occurred Sept. 22, 2007, when a waterspout moved ashore at Cardiff State Beach. It blew over some tents but did no other damage.
Waterspouts are weak spinning columns of air over water. They are fairly common and become classified as tornadoes if they move ashore. Ten to 20 are spotted off the county coast each year, but they rarely reach land.
Most local waterspouts are caused by another type of convergence. Air masses that hit the offshore islands during storms can split and then meet on the leeward side.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Climate change could sting allergy, asthma sufferers
FROM: USA Today
By Serena Gordon, HealthDay
Climate change isn't only bad for the Earth, it may be bad for your health — especially if you have allergies or asthma.
Global warming is making pollen seasons last longer, creating more ozone in the air, and even expanding the areas where insects flourish, putting more people with bee allergies at greater risk, experts say.
"Climate change will cause impacts in every area. Wet areas will get wetter, and drier climates are getting drier," said Dr. Jeffrey Demain, director of the Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Center of Alaska, and a clinical associate professor at the University of Washington.
Those changes will mean more people with allergies and asthma will suffer. In wet areas, mold allergies will spike, while in drier areas pollens and other airborne irritants will become more of a problem, he said.
Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it believes carbon dioxide and five additional greenhouse gases are dangerous to human health. This finding may eventually lead to environmentally friendly changes, such as regulations for cleaner energy and more fuel-efficient cars.
But, right now, problems caused by climate change are already evident, especially in Alaska, Demain said.
"There's been a significant shift in the ecosystem because of the rises in winter temperatures," he said. "On average, Alaska's temp has risen 6.4 degrees in winter and 3.4 degrees overall. And, the earlier the snow melts, the earlier the pollen cycle begins."
In addition to longer pollen seasons, the plant and tree life is changing along with the warmer temperatures. Demain said it's estimated that 90% of the Alaskan tundra will be forested by 2100, and that the types of trees that are most common are changing, too.
The warmer temperatures are also attracting insects. In the past, Alaska hasn't had too many stinging insects. But, said Demain, northern Alaska has recently seen a 620% increase in the number of people seeking care for bee stings.
Although Alaska's experience may be more dramatic than the rest of the United States, it's definitely not the only region that's experiencing change.
"We're having warmer, wetter winters, which lead to long springs and an increase in seasonal allergens," said Dr. David Peden, director of the Center for Environmental Medicine, Asthma and Lung Biology at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Peden also said that ozone levels are higher, which causes more asthma symptoms.
So, what can you do to protect yourself? Both Peden and Demain said that just being aware of the problem is the first step. Next, is to be sure you know specifically what you're allergic to, and then be aware of pollen and mold cycles so you can properly adjust your behavior when those levels are high.
"Pollens are usually highest in the mornings, but grass is elevated in the morning and evening. If you're tree- or weed-allergic, plan outdoor activities for the afternoon or evening. If you're grass-allergic, you might want to plan to be outside midday. Warm, sunny, dry days are usually the ones with the greatest pollen," Demain said.
Of course, it's not always possible to stay indoors, and treatments are available that can help you live with allergies and asthma.
"As mundane as this sounds, if you have allergic disease or asthma, consult with an allergist so that you have maximal therapy and information on seasonal concerns. If you're in an area with lengthy pollen seasons, allergy shots might be useful," Peden said.
"The climate is changing, and it's changing at an unprecedented rate. Whether it's a natural cycle, or whether humans are the cause, we have to recognize that this is happening," said Demain, who added, "Every small step [such as using compact fluorescent bulbs or driving less] is important. If we all take that step, we can have a big impact."
By Serena Gordon, HealthDay
Climate change isn't only bad for the Earth, it may be bad for your health — especially if you have allergies or asthma.
Global warming is making pollen seasons last longer, creating more ozone in the air, and even expanding the areas where insects flourish, putting more people with bee allergies at greater risk, experts say.
"Climate change will cause impacts in every area. Wet areas will get wetter, and drier climates are getting drier," said Dr. Jeffrey Demain, director of the Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Center of Alaska, and a clinical associate professor at the University of Washington.
Those changes will mean more people with allergies and asthma will suffer. In wet areas, mold allergies will spike, while in drier areas pollens and other airborne irritants will become more of a problem, he said.
Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced that it believes carbon dioxide and five additional greenhouse gases are dangerous to human health. This finding may eventually lead to environmentally friendly changes, such as regulations for cleaner energy and more fuel-efficient cars.
But, right now, problems caused by climate change are already evident, especially in Alaska, Demain said.
"There's been a significant shift in the ecosystem because of the rises in winter temperatures," he said. "On average, Alaska's temp has risen 6.4 degrees in winter and 3.4 degrees overall. And, the earlier the snow melts, the earlier the pollen cycle begins."
In addition to longer pollen seasons, the plant and tree life is changing along with the warmer temperatures. Demain said it's estimated that 90% of the Alaskan tundra will be forested by 2100, and that the types of trees that are most common are changing, too.
The warmer temperatures are also attracting insects. In the past, Alaska hasn't had too many stinging insects. But, said Demain, northern Alaska has recently seen a 620% increase in the number of people seeking care for bee stings.
Although Alaska's experience may be more dramatic than the rest of the United States, it's definitely not the only region that's experiencing change.
"We're having warmer, wetter winters, which lead to long springs and an increase in seasonal allergens," said Dr. David Peden, director of the Center for Environmental Medicine, Asthma and Lung Biology at the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Peden also said that ozone levels are higher, which causes more asthma symptoms.
So, what can you do to protect yourself? Both Peden and Demain said that just being aware of the problem is the first step. Next, is to be sure you know specifically what you're allergic to, and then be aware of pollen and mold cycles so you can properly adjust your behavior when those levels are high.
"Pollens are usually highest in the mornings, but grass is elevated in the morning and evening. If you're tree- or weed-allergic, plan outdoor activities for the afternoon or evening. If you're grass-allergic, you might want to plan to be outside midday. Warm, sunny, dry days are usually the ones with the greatest pollen," Demain said.
Of course, it's not always possible to stay indoors, and treatments are available that can help you live with allergies and asthma.
"As mundane as this sounds, if you have allergic disease or asthma, consult with an allergist so that you have maximal therapy and information on seasonal concerns. If you're in an area with lengthy pollen seasons, allergy shots might be useful," Peden said.
"The climate is changing, and it's changing at an unprecedented rate. Whether it's a natural cycle, or whether humans are the cause, we have to recognize that this is happening," said Demain, who added, "Every small step [such as using compact fluorescent bulbs or driving less] is important. If we all take that step, we can have a big impact."
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
NOAA: April Temperatures Slightly Cooler Than Average for U.S.
FROM: NOAA
The April 2009 temperature for the contiguous United States was below the long-term average, based on records going back to 1895, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC.
The average April temperature of 51.2 degrees F was 0.8 degree F below the 20th Century average. Precipitation across the contiguous United States in April averaged 2.62 inches, which is 0.19 inch above the 1901-2000 average.
U.S. Temperature Highlights...
-- April temperatures were near normal across much of the United States. On a regional scale, only the Northeast (above-normal) and the West North Central (below-normal) deviated significantly from normal.
-- New Hampshire observed its eighth warmest April, based on data going back to 1895. Unlike much of the Northeast, the Midwest experienced a cooler-than-normal month. From North Dakota southward to Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia, temperature averages were below normal.
-- For the year-to-date period, only North Dakota and Washington have experienced notably cooler-than-normal average temperatures. In contrast, much of the South and Southwest regions were above normal. New Mexico had its ninth warmest such period on record.
-- Based on NOAA's Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index, the contiguous U.S. temperature-related energy demand was 2.3 percent below average in April.
U.S. Precipitation Highlights...
-- Above-normal precipitation fell across parts of the Central and South regions, while the West and Northwest regions experienced below-normal precipitation.
-- Precipitation was above normal for the contiguous United States. Georgia had its fifth wettest April on record, Kansas and Michigan had their ninth wettest, and Illinois, its tenth. Only seven states were notably drier than normal for April.
-- Year to date, the Northeast experienced its fourth driest January-through-April period on record and it was the twelfth driest period for the contiguous U.S.
-- By the end of April, moderate-to-exceptional drought covered 18 percent of the contiguous United States, based on the U.S. Drought Monitor. Severe, or extreme, drought conditions continued in parts of California, Florida, Hawai'i, Nevada, Wisconsin, the southern Appalachians, and the southern Plains, with exceptional drought in southern Texas.
The April 2009 temperature for the contiguous United States was below the long-term average, based on records going back to 1895, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC.
The average April temperature of 51.2 degrees F was 0.8 degree F below the 20th Century average. Precipitation across the contiguous United States in April averaged 2.62 inches, which is 0.19 inch above the 1901-2000 average.
U.S. Temperature Highlights...
-- April temperatures were near normal across much of the United States. On a regional scale, only the Northeast (above-normal) and the West North Central (below-normal) deviated significantly from normal.
-- New Hampshire observed its eighth warmest April, based on data going back to 1895. Unlike much of the Northeast, the Midwest experienced a cooler-than-normal month. From North Dakota southward to Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia, temperature averages were below normal.
-- For the year-to-date period, only North Dakota and Washington have experienced notably cooler-than-normal average temperatures. In contrast, much of the South and Southwest regions were above normal. New Mexico had its ninth warmest such period on record.
-- Based on NOAA's Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index, the contiguous U.S. temperature-related energy demand was 2.3 percent below average in April.
U.S. Precipitation Highlights...
-- Above-normal precipitation fell across parts of the Central and South regions, while the West and Northwest regions experienced below-normal precipitation.
-- Precipitation was above normal for the contiguous United States. Georgia had its fifth wettest April on record, Kansas and Michigan had their ninth wettest, and Illinois, its tenth. Only seven states were notably drier than normal for April.
-- Year to date, the Northeast experienced its fourth driest January-through-April period on record and it was the twelfth driest period for the contiguous U.S.
-- By the end of April, moderate-to-exceptional drought covered 18 percent of the contiguous United States, based on the U.S. Drought Monitor. Severe, or extreme, drought conditions continued in parts of California, Florida, Hawai'i, Nevada, Wisconsin, the southern Appalachians, and the southern Plains, with exceptional drought in southern Texas.
Monday, May 11, 2009
NOAA: Mild Solar Storm Season Predicted
FROM: NOAA
Although its peak is still four years away, a new active period of Earth-threatening solar storms will be the weakest since 1928, predicts an international panel of experts led by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center and funded by NASA. Despite the prediction, Earth is still vulnerable to a severe solar storm.
Solar storms are eruptions of energy and matter that escape from the sun and may head toward Earth, where even a weak storm can damage satellites and power grids, disrupting communications, the electric power supply and GPS. A single strong blast of “solar wind” can threaten national security, transportation, financial services and other essential functions.
The panel predicts the upcoming Solar Cycle 24 will peak in May 2013 with 90 sunspots per day on average. If the prediction proves true, Solar Cycle 24 will be the weakest cycle since number 16, which peaked at 78 daily sunspots in 1928, and ninth weakest since the 1750s, when numbered cycles began.
The most common measure of a solar cycle’s intensity is the number of sunspots—Earth-sized blotches on the sun marking areas of heightened magnetic activity. The more sunspots there are, the more likely it is that solar storms will occur, but a major storm can occur at any time.
“As with hurricanes, whether a cycle is active or weak refers to the number of storms, but everyone needs to remember it only takes one powerful storm to cause huge problems,” said NOAA scientist Doug Biesecker, who chairs the panel. “The strongest solar storm on record occurred in 1859 during another below-average cycle.”
The 1859 storm shorted out telegraph wires, causing fires in North America and Europe, sent readings of Earth’s magnetic field soaring, and produced northern lights so bright that people read newspapers by their light.
A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences found that if a storm that severe occurred today, it could cause $1-2 trillion in damages the first year and require four to 10 years for recovery, compared to $80-125 billion that resulted from Hurricane Katrina.
The panel also predicted that the lowest sunspot number between cycles — or solar minimum — occurred in December 2008, marking the end of Cycle 23 and the start of Cycle 24. If the December prediction holds up, at 12 years and seven months Solar Cycle 23 will be the longest since 1823 and the third longest since 1755. Solar cycles span 11 years on average, from minimum to minimum.
An unusually long, deep lull in sunspots led the panel to revise its 2007 prediction that the next cycle of solar storms would start in March 2008 and peak in late 2011 or mid-2012. The persistence of a quiet sun also led the panel to a consensus that the next cycle will be “moderately weak.”
NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) is the nation’s first alert of solar activity and its effects on Earth. The Center’s space weather experts issue outlooks for the next 11-year solar cycle and warn of storms occurring on the Sun that could impact Earth. SWPC is also the world warning agency for the International Space Environment Service, a consortium of 12 member nations.
As the world economy becomes more reliant on satellite-based communications and interlinked power grids, interest in solar activity has grown dramatically. In 2008 alone, SWPC acquired 1,700 new subscription customers for warnings, alerts, reports, and other products. Among the new customers are emergency managers, airlines, state transportation departments, oil companies, and nuclear power stations. SWPC’s customers reside in 150 countries.
“Our customer growth reflects today’s reality that all sectors of society are highly dependent on advanced, space-based technologies,” said SWPC director Tom Bogdan. “Today every hiccup from the sun aimed at Earth has potential consequences.”
Although its peak is still four years away, a new active period of Earth-threatening solar storms will be the weakest since 1928, predicts an international panel of experts led by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center and funded by NASA. Despite the prediction, Earth is still vulnerable to a severe solar storm.
Solar storms are eruptions of energy and matter that escape from the sun and may head toward Earth, where even a weak storm can damage satellites and power grids, disrupting communications, the electric power supply and GPS. A single strong blast of “solar wind” can threaten national security, transportation, financial services and other essential functions.
The panel predicts the upcoming Solar Cycle 24 will peak in May 2013 with 90 sunspots per day on average. If the prediction proves true, Solar Cycle 24 will be the weakest cycle since number 16, which peaked at 78 daily sunspots in 1928, and ninth weakest since the 1750s, when numbered cycles began.
The most common measure of a solar cycle’s intensity is the number of sunspots—Earth-sized blotches on the sun marking areas of heightened magnetic activity. The more sunspots there are, the more likely it is that solar storms will occur, but a major storm can occur at any time.
“As with hurricanes, whether a cycle is active or weak refers to the number of storms, but everyone needs to remember it only takes one powerful storm to cause huge problems,” said NOAA scientist Doug Biesecker, who chairs the panel. “The strongest solar storm on record occurred in 1859 during another below-average cycle.”
The 1859 storm shorted out telegraph wires, causing fires in North America and Europe, sent readings of Earth’s magnetic field soaring, and produced northern lights so bright that people read newspapers by their light.
A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences found that if a storm that severe occurred today, it could cause $1-2 trillion in damages the first year and require four to 10 years for recovery, compared to $80-125 billion that resulted from Hurricane Katrina.
The panel also predicted that the lowest sunspot number between cycles — or solar minimum — occurred in December 2008, marking the end of Cycle 23 and the start of Cycle 24. If the December prediction holds up, at 12 years and seven months Solar Cycle 23 will be the longest since 1823 and the third longest since 1755. Solar cycles span 11 years on average, from minimum to minimum.
An unusually long, deep lull in sunspots led the panel to revise its 2007 prediction that the next cycle of solar storms would start in March 2008 and peak in late 2011 or mid-2012. The persistence of a quiet sun also led the panel to a consensus that the next cycle will be “moderately weak.”
NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) is the nation’s first alert of solar activity and its effects on Earth. The Center’s space weather experts issue outlooks for the next 11-year solar cycle and warn of storms occurring on the Sun that could impact Earth. SWPC is also the world warning agency for the International Space Environment Service, a consortium of 12 member nations.
As the world economy becomes more reliant on satellite-based communications and interlinked power grids, interest in solar activity has grown dramatically. In 2008 alone, SWPC acquired 1,700 new subscription customers for warnings, alerts, reports, and other products. Among the new customers are emergency managers, airlines, state transportation departments, oil companies, and nuclear power stations. SWPC’s customers reside in 150 countries.
“Our customer growth reflects today’s reality that all sectors of society are highly dependent on advanced, space-based technologies,” said SWPC director Tom Bogdan. “Today every hiccup from the sun aimed at Earth has potential consequences.”
Sunday, May 10, 2009
HAPPY MOTHER's DAY!
Monday, May 04, 2009
Sky on fire! - Desert Sunset
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Fair Weather Cumulus Clouds
Saturday, May 02, 2009
To keep warming low, deeper pollution cuts needed
FROM: San Diego Union-Tribune
By SETH BORENSTEIN, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — If the world is going to limit global warming to just a few degrees, it has to slash carbon dioxide pollution much more than now being discussed, two new science studies say.
Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – is the chief cause of global warming.
The studies found there's a limit to how much manmade carbon dioxide can be added to the air before warming exceeds an increase of 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – the level that many governments have set as a goal. World average temperatures going higher than that may be dangerous, some scientists say.
To keep under that danger level, the world has to spew less than 1.1 trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the first half of the 21st Century, according to studies published in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature.
In the first nine years of the century, the world has already emitted one-third of that amount and is on pace to hit that trillion ton limit in just 20 years, said climate researcher Malte Meinshausen of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and lead author of one of the studies.
Even if the world ducks under that emissions limit, there is still a 25 percent chance of temperatures exceeding the dangerous mark, he said.
President Barack Obama said he wants to cut U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 percent. That is a "good start but it's not enough to limit warming," said Bill Hare, a study co-author who is also at the Potsdam Institute.
Assuming that other countries cut their per-person emission levels to match the United States, the United States has to cut its overall pollution by 90 to 95 percent to keep the world from exceeding the 1.1 trillion ton mark, Hare said.
Cutting emissions means not burning as much fossil fuels, leaving about three quarters of the known reserves in the ground, the study authors said.
"Not much at all of coal reserves can be burnt and still keep below" the 3.6 degrees of warming, Hare said.
World emissions must start dropping by 2015, otherwise cuts will have to be too draconian, Meinshausen said.
The studies, which used computer models, take a different approach than other research on figuring out how much carbon dioxide in the air is too much. Instead of the proportion of carbon dioxide in the air at any given time, they looked at the total amount spewed out over many decades to arrive at a tipping point of 1.1 trillion tons.
Stephen Schneider of Stanford University who paints a worst case scenario for global warming in a commentary in the journal, said the studies make it seem like scientists know where there's a solid danger line for emissions, when they don't. The papers acknowledge there is a 25 percent chance the limit should be lower. Schneider said that's a pretty big risk when the consequences of being wrong are severe.
"If you had a 25 percent chance that walking into a room would give you serious flu, would you?" Schneider asked.
–––
On the Net
Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature
By SETH BORENSTEIN, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — If the world is going to limit global warming to just a few degrees, it has to slash carbon dioxide pollution much more than now being discussed, two new science studies say.
Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – is the chief cause of global warming.
The studies found there's a limit to how much manmade carbon dioxide can be added to the air before warming exceeds an increase of 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – the level that many governments have set as a goal. World average temperatures going higher than that may be dangerous, some scientists say.
To keep under that danger level, the world has to spew less than 1.1 trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the first half of the 21st Century, according to studies published in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature.
In the first nine years of the century, the world has already emitted one-third of that amount and is on pace to hit that trillion ton limit in just 20 years, said climate researcher Malte Meinshausen of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and lead author of one of the studies.
Even if the world ducks under that emissions limit, there is still a 25 percent chance of temperatures exceeding the dangerous mark, he said.
President Barack Obama said he wants to cut U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 percent. That is a "good start but it's not enough to limit warming," said Bill Hare, a study co-author who is also at the Potsdam Institute.
Assuming that other countries cut their per-person emission levels to match the United States, the United States has to cut its overall pollution by 90 to 95 percent to keep the world from exceeding the 1.1 trillion ton mark, Hare said.
Cutting emissions means not burning as much fossil fuels, leaving about three quarters of the known reserves in the ground, the study authors said.
"Not much at all of coal reserves can be burnt and still keep below" the 3.6 degrees of warming, Hare said.
World emissions must start dropping by 2015, otherwise cuts will have to be too draconian, Meinshausen said.
The studies, which used computer models, take a different approach than other research on figuring out how much carbon dioxide in the air is too much. Instead of the proportion of carbon dioxide in the air at any given time, they looked at the total amount spewed out over many decades to arrive at a tipping point of 1.1 trillion tons.
Stephen Schneider of Stanford University who paints a worst case scenario for global warming in a commentary in the journal, said the studies make it seem like scientists know where there's a solid danger line for emissions, when they don't. The papers acknowledge there is a 25 percent chance the limit should be lower. Schneider said that's a pretty big risk when the consequences of being wrong are severe.
"If you had a 25 percent chance that walking into a room would give you serious flu, would you?" Schneider asked.
–––
On the Net
Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature
Friday, May 01, 2009
Bakersfield No. 1 in fine-particle pollution
FROM: Los Angeles Times
The Kern County city replaced Los Angeles in a lung association report. But L.A.-Long Beach retained the title as worst ozone-polluted metropolitan area.
By Margot Roosevelt
Bakersfield had the worst level of fine-particle pollution in the nation last year -- a toxic mix of soot, diesel exhaust, chemicals, metals and aerosols that contribute to heart attack, stroke and lung disease, according to the American Lung Assn.'s annual State of the Air report.
The San Joaquin Valley city displaced Los Angeles, which fell to the third spot in the category of year-round particle pollution, behind second-place Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pa.
Kern County, which includes Bakersfield, was ranked the worst county in the nation for average annual particulate pollution.
The lung association report is based on data from local governments' air monitoring stations and statistics gathered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Los Angeles-Long Beach retained its spot as the worst ozone-polluted metropolitan area, despite a slight improvement in its air in the last year. San Bernardino ranked as the nation's worst county for ozone pollution.
Ozone, a powerful gas formed when sunlight reacts with vapors from vehicles, factories and power plants, irritates the lungs when inhaled. It causes wheezing and asthma attacks and can shorten lives.
In Bakersfield and Kern County, heavy-duty trucks and farm equipment are the biggest sources of particulate pollution. But wood burning is also a large contributor to wintertime levels.
"The problem in the San Joaquin Valley is generated both from the emissions themselves and the meteorology of the Valley," said Bonnie Holmes-Gen, a lung association official. "Inversion layers and stagnant weather holds pollutants close to communities, sometimes for days at a time."
The Kern County city replaced Los Angeles in a lung association report. But L.A.-Long Beach retained the title as worst ozone-polluted metropolitan area.
By Margot Roosevelt
Bakersfield had the worst level of fine-particle pollution in the nation last year -- a toxic mix of soot, diesel exhaust, chemicals, metals and aerosols that contribute to heart attack, stroke and lung disease, according to the American Lung Assn.'s annual State of the Air report.
The San Joaquin Valley city displaced Los Angeles, which fell to the third spot in the category of year-round particle pollution, behind second-place Pittsburgh-New Castle, Pa.
Kern County, which includes Bakersfield, was ranked the worst county in the nation for average annual particulate pollution.
The lung association report is based on data from local governments' air monitoring stations and statistics gathered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Los Angeles-Long Beach retained its spot as the worst ozone-polluted metropolitan area, despite a slight improvement in its air in the last year. San Bernardino ranked as the nation's worst county for ozone pollution.
Ozone, a powerful gas formed when sunlight reacts with vapors from vehicles, factories and power plants, irritates the lungs when inhaled. It causes wheezing and asthma attacks and can shorten lives.
In Bakersfield and Kern County, heavy-duty trucks and farm equipment are the biggest sources of particulate pollution. But wood burning is also a large contributor to wintertime levels.
"The problem in the San Joaquin Valley is generated both from the emissions themselves and the meteorology of the Valley," said Bonnie Holmes-Gen, a lung association official. "Inversion layers and stagnant weather holds pollutants close to communities, sometimes for days at a time."
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
