Monday, November 30, 2009
Altocumulus clouds
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Altocumulus/Altostratus clouds
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Weekly Drought Monitor - as of November 24th, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Cirrostratus/Altostratus clouds
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Cirrostratus/Altostratus clouds
Monday, November 23, 2009
Altostratus clouds
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Weekly Drought Monitor - as of November 17th, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
When it Comes to CO2, What Goes Up Isn’t Always Coming Down
FROM: NOAA
The ocean and the land are natural sponges, or sinks, that absorb carbon dioxide, or CO2, from the atmosphere. But a group of international scientists, including two from NOAA, have found that the emissions are outpacing the ability of the sinks to soak up the excess CO2.
“More CO2 is staying in the atmosphere instead of being absorbed by the ocean and land sinks, like trees and other vegetation,” said Richard Feely, Ph.D., an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle and an expert on ocean acidification, the change in the ocean’s chemistry because of excess CO2. “We’re concerned that if the natural sinks can't keep pace with the increased CO2 emissions, then the physical and biological impacts of global warming will accelerate over the next century.”
Feely and Thomas Conway, a research chemist at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., were among a team of 31 scientists who contributed to “Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide,” published today in Nature Geosciences. The scientists are also members of the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration that works to develop a complete picture of the global carbon cycle.
Using a variety of data including direct observations, computer-generated models, and estimates from countries’ energy statistics, the team created a global CO2 budget – or amount of CO2 produced and consumed -- from 1959 to 2008. The researchers write that during that time, an average of 43 percent of each year’s CO2 emissions remained in the atmosphere.
The team did note a spike in global CO2 emissions from 2000 and 2008, likely attributed to manufacturing in developing countries, as well as a rising use of coal as fuel.
Unlike other studies that only consider fossil fuel use to measure CO2 produced by human activities, this team included emissions from changing land use, such as deforestation, logging and intensive cultivation of cropland soils, which also emit CO2.
NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory has been monitoring CO2 since 1958, when Charles Keeling, after whom the Keeling Curve is named, began analyzing air samples and charting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Those measurements were used in this study and are a vital part of NOAA’s suite of climate services.
NOAA and its national and international partners are working together to better understand the extent of ocean acidification and its effect on coastal and ocean ecosystems. Activities include physical and chemical sensors on ships, moorings and floats track CO2 and pH levels in the ocean and satellites monitor sea surface temperatures.
The ocean and the land are natural sponges, or sinks, that absorb carbon dioxide, or CO2, from the atmosphere. But a group of international scientists, including two from NOAA, have found that the emissions are outpacing the ability of the sinks to soak up the excess CO2.
“More CO2 is staying in the atmosphere instead of being absorbed by the ocean and land sinks, like trees and other vegetation,” said Richard Feely, Ph.D., an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle and an expert on ocean acidification, the change in the ocean’s chemistry because of excess CO2. “We’re concerned that if the natural sinks can't keep pace with the increased CO2 emissions, then the physical and biological impacts of global warming will accelerate over the next century.”
Feely and Thomas Conway, a research chemist at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., were among a team of 31 scientists who contributed to “Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide,” published today in Nature Geosciences. The scientists are also members of the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration that works to develop a complete picture of the global carbon cycle.
Using a variety of data including direct observations, computer-generated models, and estimates from countries’ energy statistics, the team created a global CO2 budget – or amount of CO2 produced and consumed -- from 1959 to 2008. The researchers write that during that time, an average of 43 percent of each year’s CO2 emissions remained in the atmosphere.
The team did note a spike in global CO2 emissions from 2000 and 2008, likely attributed to manufacturing in developing countries, as well as a rising use of coal as fuel.
Unlike other studies that only consider fossil fuel use to measure CO2 produced by human activities, this team included emissions from changing land use, such as deforestation, logging and intensive cultivation of cropland soils, which also emit CO2.
NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory has been monitoring CO2 since 1958, when Charles Keeling, after whom the Keeling Curve is named, began analyzing air samples and charting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Those measurements were used in this study and are a vital part of NOAA’s suite of climate services.
NOAA and its national and international partners are working together to better understand the extent of ocean acidification and its effect on coastal and ocean ecosystems. Activities include physical and chemical sensors on ships, moorings and floats track CO2 and pH levels in the ocean and satellites monitor sea surface temperatures.
Friday, November 20, 2009
NOAA: Combined Global Surface Temperature Was Sixth Warmest for October
FROM: NOAA
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest October on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Based on records going back to 1880, the monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.
NCDC scientists reported that the average land surface temperature for October was also the sixth warmest on record. Additionally, the global ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record for October.
Global Temperature Highlights
* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2009 was the sixth warmest on record, at 1.03 degrees F above the 20th century average of 57.1 degrees F.
* The global land surface temperature for October 2009 was 1.48 degrees F above the 20th century average of 48.7 degrees F, and ranked as the sixth warmest October on record.
* The worldwide ocean temperature was the fifth warmest October on record, with an anomaly of 0.90 degree F above the 20th century average of 60.6 degrees F. Warmer-than-average temperatures dominated much of the world’s land areas. The greatest warm temperature variances during October 2009 were present across Alaska and northern and eastern Russia.
* Cooler-than-average conditions prevailed across Scandinavia, New Zealand, the contiguous U.S., and parts of northern Australia and southern South America.
Other Highlights
* According to New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand experienced uncharacteristically cool conditions, resulting in the coolest October since 1945. The national average was 51.1 degrees F, 2.5 degrees F below the long-term average.
* Average Arctic sea ice coverage was 2.9 million square miles during October. This is 19.2 percent less than the 1979-2000 average and the second smallest October extent, behind 2007, since records began in 1979.
* Antarctic sea ice extent in October was 1.6 percent above the 1979-2000 average, the ninth largest October extent on record.
* Hurricane Rick became the second-most intense Northeast Pacific hurricane on record, behind 1997’s Linda, and the strongest hurricane to form in October since reliable records began. Rick made landfall near Mazatlan, Mexico on October 21st, resulting in two fatalities.
Scientists, researchers, and leaders in government and industry use NOAA’s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world's climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest October on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Based on records going back to 1880, the monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.
NCDC scientists reported that the average land surface temperature for October was also the sixth warmest on record. Additionally, the global ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record for October.
Global Temperature Highlights
* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2009 was the sixth warmest on record, at 1.03 degrees F above the 20th century average of 57.1 degrees F.
* The global land surface temperature for October 2009 was 1.48 degrees F above the 20th century average of 48.7 degrees F, and ranked as the sixth warmest October on record.
* The worldwide ocean temperature was the fifth warmest October on record, with an anomaly of 0.90 degree F above the 20th century average of 60.6 degrees F. Warmer-than-average temperatures dominated much of the world’s land areas. The greatest warm temperature variances during October 2009 were present across Alaska and northern and eastern Russia.
* Cooler-than-average conditions prevailed across Scandinavia, New Zealand, the contiguous U.S., and parts of northern Australia and southern South America.
Other Highlights
* According to New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand experienced uncharacteristically cool conditions, resulting in the coolest October since 1945. The national average was 51.1 degrees F, 2.5 degrees F below the long-term average.
* Average Arctic sea ice coverage was 2.9 million square miles during October. This is 19.2 percent less than the 1979-2000 average and the second smallest October extent, behind 2007, since records began in 1979.
* Antarctic sea ice extent in October was 1.6 percent above the 1979-2000 average, the ninth largest October extent on record.
* Hurricane Rick became the second-most intense Northeast Pacific hurricane on record, behind 1997’s Linda, and the strongest hurricane to form in October since reliable records began. Rick made landfall near Mazatlan, Mexico on October 21st, resulting in two fatalities.
Scientists, researchers, and leaders in government and industry use NOAA’s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world's climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
NOAA Releases Expanded World Ocean Database
FROM: NOAA
NOAA today released the World Ocean Database 2009, the largest, most comprehensive collection of scientific information about the oceans with records dating as far back as 1800. This product is part of the climate services provided by NOAA.
The 2009 database, updated from the 2005 edition, is significantly larger providing approximately 9.1 million temperature profiles and 3.5 million salinity reports. The 2009 database also captures 29 categories of scientific information from the oceans, including oxygen levels and chemical tracers, plus information on gases and isotopes that can be used to trace the movement of ocean currents.
“There is now more data about the global oceans than ever before,” said Sydney Levitus, director of the World Data Center for Oceanography, which is part of NOAA’s National Oceanographic Data Center. “Previous databases have shown the world ocean has warmed during the last 53 years, and it’s crucial we have reliable, accurate monitoring of our oceans into the future.”
Climate scientists use the World Ocean Database to track changing conditions which adds to the international science community's understanding of global climate change. Forecast centers, such as NOAA’s Ocean Prediction Center, also use the information for quality control of real-time oceanographic information.
The database is a crucial part of the Integrated Ocean Observing System and the Global Earth Observation System of Systems, or GEOSS, as a reliable source of oceanic information. The information was compiled by scientists at the Ocean Climate Laboratory, part of the NOAA Satellite and Information Service.
NOAA today released the World Ocean Database 2009, the largest, most comprehensive collection of scientific information about the oceans with records dating as far back as 1800. This product is part of the climate services provided by NOAA.
The 2009 database, updated from the 2005 edition, is significantly larger providing approximately 9.1 million temperature profiles and 3.5 million salinity reports. The 2009 database also captures 29 categories of scientific information from the oceans, including oxygen levels and chemical tracers, plus information on gases and isotopes that can be used to trace the movement of ocean currents.
“There is now more data about the global oceans than ever before,” said Sydney Levitus, director of the World Data Center for Oceanography, which is part of NOAA’s National Oceanographic Data Center. “Previous databases have shown the world ocean has warmed during the last 53 years, and it’s crucial we have reliable, accurate monitoring of our oceans into the future.”
Climate scientists use the World Ocean Database to track changing conditions which adds to the international science community's understanding of global climate change. Forecast centers, such as NOAA’s Ocean Prediction Center, also use the information for quality control of real-time oceanographic information.
The database is a crucial part of the Integrated Ocean Observing System and the Global Earth Observation System of Systems, or GEOSS, as a reliable source of oceanic information. The information was compiled by scientists at the Ocean Climate Laboratory, part of the NOAA Satellite and Information Service.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
New Study Uncovers Key Role of Bacteria in the Formation of ‘Red Tide’ Algal Blooms
FROM: NOAA
According to a new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, NOAA and NOAA-funded university scientists are closer to understanding why “red tides,” called harmful algal blooms form. These toxic harmful algal blooms threaten marine ecosystems, human health, and cost local and regional economies millions of dollars annually through fishery closures and recreation and tourism losses.
The study looked at the impact that the cooperative interactions between marine microalgae and bacteria have on the growth of harmful algal blooms
Scientists have long recognized that certain species of bacteria are closely associated with the microalgae that form the harmful algal blooms, but didn’t understand why the blooms formed or what role the bacteria play.
The researchers found that certain species of bacteria form a mutually-beneficial relationship with the algae that promotes the growth of each. The bacteria release a chemical which helps the algae absorb iron, a critical nutrient for photosynthesis. The algae, in turn, release organic compounds to support the growth of the bacteria.
The potential impacts of the study are extensive, and could result in improved modeling and forecasting of harmful algal blooms or potential strategies for prevention, according to William Sunda, Ph.D., of NOAA’s Beaufort Laboratory, a co-author of the report.
“The results of the research have global implications,” said Sunda. “If we can find a way to inhibit the bacteria we should be able to help communities around the world deal with problematic and costly algal blooms.”
The study also offers new insight for climate change models, since dimethylsulfide, a gas produced by the bloom-forming algae, plays a critical role in the process of cloud formation and the ability of clouds to reflect sunlight back into space. The degree to which light is reflected in turn influences solar heating of the Earth, affecting global climate.
According to a new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, NOAA and NOAA-funded university scientists are closer to understanding why “red tides,” called harmful algal blooms form. These toxic harmful algal blooms threaten marine ecosystems, human health, and cost local and regional economies millions of dollars annually through fishery closures and recreation and tourism losses.
The study looked at the impact that the cooperative interactions between marine microalgae and bacteria have on the growth of harmful algal blooms
Scientists have long recognized that certain species of bacteria are closely associated with the microalgae that form the harmful algal blooms, but didn’t understand why the blooms formed or what role the bacteria play.
The researchers found that certain species of bacteria form a mutually-beneficial relationship with the algae that promotes the growth of each. The bacteria release a chemical which helps the algae absorb iron, a critical nutrient for photosynthesis. The algae, in turn, release organic compounds to support the growth of the bacteria.
The potential impacts of the study are extensive, and could result in improved modeling and forecasting of harmful algal blooms or potential strategies for prevention, according to William Sunda, Ph.D., of NOAA’s Beaufort Laboratory, a co-author of the report.
“The results of the research have global implications,” said Sunda. “If we can find a way to inhibit the bacteria we should be able to help communities around the world deal with problematic and costly algal blooms.”
The study also offers new insight for climate change models, since dimethylsulfide, a gas produced by the bloom-forming algae, plays a critical role in the process of cloud formation and the ability of clouds to reflect sunlight back into space. The degree to which light is reflected in turn influences solar heating of the Earth, affecting global climate.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Water still divides the state
FROM: Los Angeles Times
By George Skelton Capitol Journal
From Sacramento
Years ago, pundits and pols began redrawing the California political map with an east-west divide, erasing the historic north-south split. Now they can partition it north-south again, at least in mapping the reignited water war.
In voting patterns and attitudes about social issues and the environment, California generally has become divided east and west -- interior and coastal.
"The closer to the ocean, the farther to the left," notes longtime Democratic political consultant Richie Ross.
But on water, as illustrated by the recent legislative battle, combatants still are lined up north and south.
In fact, a close look shows that it's even more regional than that. Divvying up water has historically been California's biggest statewide problem, but it always boils down to a local issue.
"Nothing's more local than our toilets," Ross observes.
Capturing a reliable supply for flushing, drinking, washing and irrigating pits farmers in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta against farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, people in the Bay Area against delta environmentalism and farmers everywhere. And so on.
"It's like a Yugoslavian civil war with different factions," says Republican consultant Kevin Spillane.
That said, the main legislative battle line again was drawn across the Tehachapi Mountains, as it has been for generations. Lawmakers representing the arid, urban Southland heavily supported the controversial package of water development, conservation mandates and fixes for the deteriorating delta, California's main water hub. San Joaquin Valley representatives also tended to back it.
But most lawmakers from wetter Northern California -- beginning at a line drawn from the Bay Area through the delta to Sacramento -- voted no.
Example: An $11.1-billion water bond issue demanded by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Republican leaders was supported by 40 Southern California members of the Assembly but by only 15 lawmakers from the central and northern parts of the state. Fifteen northerners opposed it.
Similarly in the Senate, 20 southerners supported the bond, but only seven from the rest of the state did.
A linchpin bill to create a new delta governing structure -- and pave the way for a potential "peripheral canal," dam construction and environmental restoration -- received 37 Southern California votes in the Assembly but only nine from central and northern lawmakers. Nineteen northerners voted against it. In the Senate, it was roughly the same pattern.
This was one of those very rare occasions -- and I can't recall another in recent years -- when the battle was much less about political partisanship than regional rivalries.
Republican Sen. Dave Cox, who represents part of Sacramento County and the Sierra, bluntly articulated northern fears and resentment during a late-night floor debate. "We're not talking about your water," he scolded southerners. "We're talking about our water. The water comes from the north.
"It's about taking water away from somebody who has the water and giving it to somebody who wants it."
In the Assembly, Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) complained that the legislation was "running roughshod over the water rights" of northerners.
Assemblywoman Alyson Huber (D-El Dorado Hills) held up a plastic crate full of 2,000 postcards from constituents opposing a peripheral canal, which would divert fresh Sacramento River water now flowing into the saline-prone delta and funnel it directly into the California Aqueduct headed south. Huber, who as a child lived in a trailer park behind a delta marina, later carted the postcards down to the governor's office.
She and other Delta-region legislators strongly object to the makeup of a powerful new governing body called the Delta Stewardship Council. Of its seven members, only one will represent the delta. Four will be appointed by the governor and two by the Legislature.
"It's like if you lived on the coast and the Coastal Commission only had people from Bakersfield, Fresno and Redding," she says. "What else can you conclude? This looks very much like a big water grab."
Southerners and their few -- but powerful -- northern allies used a Rodney King "Can't we all just get along?" appeal.
Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) lectured that the north and south must "rely on each other." Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), a water package sponsor, asked: "Are we prepared to put aside our regional differences and act as one California?"
Well, no, except for a few -- most notably Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, a Sacramento Democrat who negotiated and pushed the hardest to pass the legislation. He argued that the delta waterworks were broken -- killing fish, not delivering for agriculture -- and that the status quo is unacceptable. Compromise was necessary.
Sen. Fran Pavely (D-Agoura Hills) is a good example of the north-south split. She's one of the Legislature's strongest environmentalists and voted against a peripheral canal when it was on the ballot in 1982 and soundly rejected. But she voted in the Senate for the new water package after helping to negotiate it. The delta now "isn't serving anyone's purpose," she says.
But she and many others are skeptical about whether the big bond measure will pass next November.
It would be at least a $400-million hit on the deficit-ridden general fund for annual debt service.
"From listening to people -- like the dentist who spent a half hour on my teeth today -- if the bond were on the ballot this November, it wouldn't pass," Pavely told me last week. "The public now is connecting the dots. Bond money isn't free."
"It's going to be a very tough sale in Northern California," adds Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo), who represents much of the delta. "There's a lack of trust in the government."
Says Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, a veteran of ballot measure battles: "I don't think it would take much to whip up a frenzy about the unfairness of the north sending water south."
It never has.
By George Skelton Capitol Journal
From Sacramento
Years ago, pundits and pols began redrawing the California political map with an east-west divide, erasing the historic north-south split. Now they can partition it north-south again, at least in mapping the reignited water war.
In voting patterns and attitudes about social issues and the environment, California generally has become divided east and west -- interior and coastal.
"The closer to the ocean, the farther to the left," notes longtime Democratic political consultant Richie Ross.
But on water, as illustrated by the recent legislative battle, combatants still are lined up north and south.
In fact, a close look shows that it's even more regional than that. Divvying up water has historically been California's biggest statewide problem, but it always boils down to a local issue.
"Nothing's more local than our toilets," Ross observes.
Capturing a reliable supply for flushing, drinking, washing and irrigating pits farmers in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta against farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, people in the Bay Area against delta environmentalism and farmers everywhere. And so on.
"It's like a Yugoslavian civil war with different factions," says Republican consultant Kevin Spillane.
That said, the main legislative battle line again was drawn across the Tehachapi Mountains, as it has been for generations. Lawmakers representing the arid, urban Southland heavily supported the controversial package of water development, conservation mandates and fixes for the deteriorating delta, California's main water hub. San Joaquin Valley representatives also tended to back it.
But most lawmakers from wetter Northern California -- beginning at a line drawn from the Bay Area through the delta to Sacramento -- voted no.
Example: An $11.1-billion water bond issue demanded by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Republican leaders was supported by 40 Southern California members of the Assembly but by only 15 lawmakers from the central and northern parts of the state. Fifteen northerners opposed it.
Similarly in the Senate, 20 southerners supported the bond, but only seven from the rest of the state did.
A linchpin bill to create a new delta governing structure -- and pave the way for a potential "peripheral canal," dam construction and environmental restoration -- received 37 Southern California votes in the Assembly but only nine from central and northern lawmakers. Nineteen northerners voted against it. In the Senate, it was roughly the same pattern.
This was one of those very rare occasions -- and I can't recall another in recent years -- when the battle was much less about political partisanship than regional rivalries.
Republican Sen. Dave Cox, who represents part of Sacramento County and the Sierra, bluntly articulated northern fears and resentment during a late-night floor debate. "We're not talking about your water," he scolded southerners. "We're talking about our water. The water comes from the north.
"It's about taking water away from somebody who has the water and giving it to somebody who wants it."
In the Assembly, Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) complained that the legislation was "running roughshod over the water rights" of northerners.
Assemblywoman Alyson Huber (D-El Dorado Hills) held up a plastic crate full of 2,000 postcards from constituents opposing a peripheral canal, which would divert fresh Sacramento River water now flowing into the saline-prone delta and funnel it directly into the California Aqueduct headed south. Huber, who as a child lived in a trailer park behind a delta marina, later carted the postcards down to the governor's office.
She and other Delta-region legislators strongly object to the makeup of a powerful new governing body called the Delta Stewardship Council. Of its seven members, only one will represent the delta. Four will be appointed by the governor and two by the Legislature.
"It's like if you lived on the coast and the Coastal Commission only had people from Bakersfield, Fresno and Redding," she says. "What else can you conclude? This looks very much like a big water grab."
Southerners and their few -- but powerful -- northern allies used a Rodney King "Can't we all just get along?" appeal.
Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) lectured that the north and south must "rely on each other." Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), a water package sponsor, asked: "Are we prepared to put aside our regional differences and act as one California?"
Well, no, except for a few -- most notably Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, a Sacramento Democrat who negotiated and pushed the hardest to pass the legislation. He argued that the delta waterworks were broken -- killing fish, not delivering for agriculture -- and that the status quo is unacceptable. Compromise was necessary.
Sen. Fran Pavely (D-Agoura Hills) is a good example of the north-south split. She's one of the Legislature's strongest environmentalists and voted against a peripheral canal when it was on the ballot in 1982 and soundly rejected. But she voted in the Senate for the new water package after helping to negotiate it. The delta now "isn't serving anyone's purpose," she says.
But she and many others are skeptical about whether the big bond measure will pass next November.
It would be at least a $400-million hit on the deficit-ridden general fund for annual debt service.
"From listening to people -- like the dentist who spent a half hour on my teeth today -- if the bond were on the ballot this November, it wouldn't pass," Pavely told me last week. "The public now is connecting the dots. Bond money isn't free."
"It's going to be a very tough sale in Northern California," adds Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan (D-Alamo), who represents much of the delta. "There's a lack of trust in the government."
Says Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, a veteran of ballot measure battles: "I don't think it would take much to whip up a frenzy about the unfairness of the north sending water south."
It never has.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sunset at La Jolla
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sunset at Hermosa Beach
Saturday, November 14, 2009
NOAA Deploys New ‘Smart Buoy’
FROM: NOAA
NOAA deployed the seventh in a series of “smart buoys” to monitor weather conditions and water quality in the Chesapeake Bay today. The buoy, located at the mouth of Severn River near Annapolis, Md., will be used by commercial and recreational boaters to navigate safely and provide data for educators and scientists to monitor the Bay's changing conditions.
Like the other six buoys in the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System, it will collect weather, oceanographic, and water quality observations and transmit the data wirelessly to users in near-real time. Observations from the buoys, as well as historical and seasonal information about the Bay and educational resources, are available online and by phone at 877-BUOY-BAY (877-286-9229).
Bay restoration is a high priority for many area officials and planners, who also recognize the important role scientific data and tracking observations play in restoration efforts.
“This system of high-technology buoys protects lives and property by providing real-time weather, tide, and current information that is also used to improve forecasts and warnings for boaters and neighbors in the Chesapeake Bay. I will keep fighting to put funds in the federal checkbook for critical investments like these that protect boaters, watermen and the Bay,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice and Science Committee that funds NOAA.
Deployment of this observational buoy comes just two days after federal agencies made a draft of their strategy to tackle Bay cleanup available for public comment. On Monday, officials released a draft strategy to accelerate Bay restoration in accordance with President Obama’s Executive Order on the Chesapeake Bay. These buoys are an essential component of the monitoring and decision-support technologies called for in the strategy.
“I recently introduced legislation that calls for aggressive action to restore the Bay to health and sustainability,” said Sen. Benjamin Cardin, a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. “I particularly want to commend NOAA for its monitoring and observing system in the Bay. This new buoy in Annapolis will be joining other monitors along the Captain John Smith Trail as a way to help Marylanders and all Americans understand and appreciate the unique history, culture and environment of the Bay.”
Since 2007, the system’s existing buoys have been deployed at the mouths of the Potomac, Patapsco, Susquehanna, and Rappahannock Rivers, and in James River off Jamestown, Va., and in the Elizabeth River off Norfolk.
“The NOAA buoys are an incredible asset for scientists and boaters, but also a tool to help educate our next generation of Chesapeake Bay stewards,” said Rep. John Sarbanes. "I am proud to have fought for the resources to deploy and maintain them.”
Each of the buoys also marks a site along the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail.
“We are delighted that the Annapolis buoy will allow modern day-explorers on the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail to learn about the Chesapeake's rich history and its treasured landscapes," said David O'Neill, President of the Friends of the John Smith Chesapeake Trail.
The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office focuses NOAA’s capabilities in science, service, and stewardship to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.
NOAA deployed the seventh in a series of “smart buoys” to monitor weather conditions and water quality in the Chesapeake Bay today. The buoy, located at the mouth of Severn River near Annapolis, Md., will be used by commercial and recreational boaters to navigate safely and provide data for educators and scientists to monitor the Bay's changing conditions.
Like the other six buoys in the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System, it will collect weather, oceanographic, and water quality observations and transmit the data wirelessly to users in near-real time. Observations from the buoys, as well as historical and seasonal information about the Bay and educational resources, are available online and by phone at 877-BUOY-BAY (877-286-9229).
Bay restoration is a high priority for many area officials and planners, who also recognize the important role scientific data and tracking observations play in restoration efforts.
“This system of high-technology buoys protects lives and property by providing real-time weather, tide, and current information that is also used to improve forecasts and warnings for boaters and neighbors in the Chesapeake Bay. I will keep fighting to put funds in the federal checkbook for critical investments like these that protect boaters, watermen and the Bay,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, Chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice and Science Committee that funds NOAA.
Deployment of this observational buoy comes just two days after federal agencies made a draft of their strategy to tackle Bay cleanup available for public comment. On Monday, officials released a draft strategy to accelerate Bay restoration in accordance with President Obama’s Executive Order on the Chesapeake Bay. These buoys are an essential component of the monitoring and decision-support technologies called for in the strategy.
“I recently introduced legislation that calls for aggressive action to restore the Bay to health and sustainability,” said Sen. Benjamin Cardin, a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. “I particularly want to commend NOAA for its monitoring and observing system in the Bay. This new buoy in Annapolis will be joining other monitors along the Captain John Smith Trail as a way to help Marylanders and all Americans understand and appreciate the unique history, culture and environment of the Bay.”
Since 2007, the system’s existing buoys have been deployed at the mouths of the Potomac, Patapsco, Susquehanna, and Rappahannock Rivers, and in James River off Jamestown, Va., and in the Elizabeth River off Norfolk.
“The NOAA buoys are an incredible asset for scientists and boaters, but also a tool to help educate our next generation of Chesapeake Bay stewards,” said Rep. John Sarbanes. "I am proud to have fought for the resources to deploy and maintain them.”
Each of the buoys also marks a site along the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail.
“We are delighted that the Annapolis buoy will allow modern day-explorers on the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail to learn about the Chesapeake's rich history and its treasured landscapes," said David O'Neill, President of the Friends of the John Smith Chesapeake Trail.
The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office focuses NOAA’s capabilities in science, service, and stewardship to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Weekly Drought Monitor - as of November 10th, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Could weather trigger earthquakes, landslides or eruptions?
FROM: USA Today
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
Could "earthquake weather" be more than a legend?
Dating back to Aristotle, who in the fourth century B.C. believed that earthquakes were caused by winds trapped in subterranean caves, there have been those who thought that warm, calm, cloudy weather was a sign of an impending quake.
Until recently, though, the official line from geologists is that such beliefs are false, that there's no relationship between atmospheric and seismic phenomena.
But research published recently in the journal Nature Geosciences says the atmospheric pressure changes associated with some weather systems could help trigger earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions and even the movement of glaciers.
What type of weather?
Study lead author William Schulz of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver says it depends on the speed of the weather systems skirting above quake-prone regions. Rapidly moving areas of low atmospheric pressure – storms – could trigger certain types of slides and quakes, he says. During these periods of low pressure, when there is less force exerted upon the ground, the upward movement of air and water molecules in the soil would serve to reduce the friction that usually holds the soil or rocks in place, potentially leading to landslides and earthquakes.
On the other hand, long periods of unusually high atmospheric pressure, meaning extended periods of calm, quiet weather, also could trigger slides and quakes. "This positive pressure can also result in destabilization," he says.
Schulz and his colleagues analyzed a huge, extremely slow-moving landslide in southwestern Colorado for nine months. They examined how the slide was affected by "atmospheric tides," daily cycles of high and low pressure that are triggered as the sun heats the atmosphere each day.
The scientists found the slide's progress was greater when the atmospheric pressure dropped at night. The team theorized that atmospheric changes caused by weather systems could act as a trigger for earthquakes as well as landslides.
This was the second peer-reviewed study published this year to put forward a relationship between earthquakes and weather. In an article in Nature in June, Taiwanese scientist ChiChung Liu and his research team said some earthquakes in Asia can be triggered by the lower atmospheric pressure of typhoons.
"This is a very interesting article and a remarkable claim," says Maura Hagen, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was not part of the research study. She says the study does suggest "a strong correlation between atmospheric perturbations and landslide movement."
The report also does a good job pointing out the entire Earth system, from the atmosphere to the land surfaces, is all one, interconnected system, she says.
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
Could "earthquake weather" be more than a legend?
Dating back to Aristotle, who in the fourth century B.C. believed that earthquakes were caused by winds trapped in subterranean caves, there have been those who thought that warm, calm, cloudy weather was a sign of an impending quake.
Until recently, though, the official line from geologists is that such beliefs are false, that there's no relationship between atmospheric and seismic phenomena.
But research published recently in the journal Nature Geosciences says the atmospheric pressure changes associated with some weather systems could help trigger earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions and even the movement of glaciers.
What type of weather?
Study lead author William Schulz of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver says it depends on the speed of the weather systems skirting above quake-prone regions. Rapidly moving areas of low atmospheric pressure – storms – could trigger certain types of slides and quakes, he says. During these periods of low pressure, when there is less force exerted upon the ground, the upward movement of air and water molecules in the soil would serve to reduce the friction that usually holds the soil or rocks in place, potentially leading to landslides and earthquakes.
On the other hand, long periods of unusually high atmospheric pressure, meaning extended periods of calm, quiet weather, also could trigger slides and quakes. "This positive pressure can also result in destabilization," he says.
Schulz and his colleagues analyzed a huge, extremely slow-moving landslide in southwestern Colorado for nine months. They examined how the slide was affected by "atmospheric tides," daily cycles of high and low pressure that are triggered as the sun heats the atmosphere each day.
The scientists found the slide's progress was greater when the atmospheric pressure dropped at night. The team theorized that atmospheric changes caused by weather systems could act as a trigger for earthquakes as well as landslides.
This was the second peer-reviewed study published this year to put forward a relationship between earthquakes and weather. In an article in Nature in June, Taiwanese scientist ChiChung Liu and his research team said some earthquakes in Asia can be triggered by the lower atmospheric pressure of typhoons.
"This is a very interesting article and a remarkable claim," says Maura Hagen, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was not part of the research study. She says the study does suggest "a strong correlation between atmospheric perturbations and landslide movement."
The report also does a good job pointing out the entire Earth system, from the atmosphere to the land surfaces, is all one, interconnected system, she says.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
October was wettest on record in USA
FROM: USA Today
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
The USA just slogged through its wettest October on record, the federal government's National Climatic Data Center announced Tuesday.
The nationwide precipitation of 4.15 inches was nearly double the long-term average of 2.11 inches, the center noted in an online report. Precipitation was most extreme in the central USA, where three states — Iowa, Arkansas, and Louisiana — saw their wettest October ever.
Only three out of the 50 U.S. states had below-average amounts of rain and snow: Florida, Utah, and Arizona.
In addition to the damp, October was also extremely cool, measuring the third-coldest since records began in 1895. The average national temperature of 50.8 degrees was 4 degrees below average. Only the Octobers of 1976 and 1925 were cooler.
Oklahoma shivered through its coldest October on record, while Nebraska and Kansas were the second-chilliest ever.
In the report, the center noted that the the month was marked by an active weather pattern, which reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation's nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.
The soggy October helped ease drought conditions across the USA. The National Drought Mitigation Center in Lincoln, Neb., reported last week that the nation is in its best shape of the decade, in regards to drought.
"This is the least amount of the country that's been in drought in the past 10 years," according to Brian Fuchs, a climatologist with the center.
For the year-do-date, many states along the mid- and Lower Mississippi Valley are having their wettest years on record, according to the climate data center.
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
The USA just slogged through its wettest October on record, the federal government's National Climatic Data Center announced Tuesday.
The nationwide precipitation of 4.15 inches was nearly double the long-term average of 2.11 inches, the center noted in an online report. Precipitation was most extreme in the central USA, where three states — Iowa, Arkansas, and Louisiana — saw their wettest October ever.
Only three out of the 50 U.S. states had below-average amounts of rain and snow: Florida, Utah, and Arizona.
In addition to the damp, October was also extremely cool, measuring the third-coldest since records began in 1895. The average national temperature of 50.8 degrees was 4 degrees below average. Only the Octobers of 1976 and 1925 were cooler.
Oklahoma shivered through its coldest October on record, while Nebraska and Kansas were the second-chilliest ever.
In the report, the center noted that the the month was marked by an active weather pattern, which reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation's nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.
The soggy October helped ease drought conditions across the USA. The National Drought Mitigation Center in Lincoln, Neb., reported last week that the nation is in its best shape of the decade, in regards to drought.
"This is the least amount of the country that's been in drought in the past 10 years," according to Brian Fuchs, a climatologist with the center.
For the year-do-date, many states along the mid- and Lower Mississippi Valley are having their wettest years on record, according to the climate data center.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Expanding cities contribute to global warming
FROM: USA Today
The USA’s expanding cities and suburbs are contributing more to global warming than previously thought, says a new study in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology.
"We found that most land-use changes, especially urbanization, result in warming," said study co-author Eugenia Kalnay of the University of Maryland.
Most scientists believe man-made climate change is primarily the result of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So, does this mean rising temperatures due to greenhouse gases are less significant? No, say study authors.
"I think that greenhouse warming is incredibly important, but land use should not be neglected," Kalnay said. "It clearly contributes to warming, especially in urban and arid areas."
As for how much it contributes, compared to greenhouse gases, “we cannot provide a specific percentage,” writes study co-author Roger Pielke, Sr., of the University of Colorado in an e-mail. “But our results suggest that land-use change can effect surface temperatures as much or more than what has been simulated by the global climate models as being due to added CO2 from human activities.”
The study recommends that the predicted land-use changes be incorporated into the computer models designed to forecast changes in climate conditions. This is key, according to study co-author Dev Niyogi of Purdue University. He said that even with aggressive green emission controls, warming will still continue unless how we use the land is considered.
“Continued temperature changes will occur as long as the landscape continues to be altered,” added Pielke. “The subject of the effect of future land use change on local and regional climate should be a major focus of upcoming climate assessments.”
Among the study's findings:
-- Land use conversion more often results in warming than cooling.
-- Urbanization and conversion to bare soils have the largest warming impacts.
-- Conversion to agriculture results in cooling, while conversion from agriculture generally results in warming.
-- In general, the more the vegetation covers an area of land, the cooler its contribution to surface temperature.
-- Deforestation generally results in warming, with the exception of a shift from forest to agriculture
-- The temperature effect of planting a new forest is unclear.
By Doyle Rice
The USA’s expanding cities and suburbs are contributing more to global warming than previously thought, says a new study in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology.
"We found that most land-use changes, especially urbanization, result in warming," said study co-author Eugenia Kalnay of the University of Maryland.
Most scientists believe man-made climate change is primarily the result of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So, does this mean rising temperatures due to greenhouse gases are less significant? No, say study authors.
"I think that greenhouse warming is incredibly important, but land use should not be neglected," Kalnay said. "It clearly contributes to warming, especially in urban and arid areas."
As for how much it contributes, compared to greenhouse gases, “we cannot provide a specific percentage,” writes study co-author Roger Pielke, Sr., of the University of Colorado in an e-mail. “But our results suggest that land-use change can effect surface temperatures as much or more than what has been simulated by the global climate models as being due to added CO2 from human activities.”
The study recommends that the predicted land-use changes be incorporated into the computer models designed to forecast changes in climate conditions. This is key, according to study co-author Dev Niyogi of Purdue University. He said that even with aggressive green emission controls, warming will still continue unless how we use the land is considered.
“Continued temperature changes will occur as long as the landscape continues to be altered,” added Pielke. “The subject of the effect of future land use change on local and regional climate should be a major focus of upcoming climate assessments.”
Among the study's findings:
-- Land use conversion more often results in warming than cooling.
-- Urbanization and conversion to bare soils have the largest warming impacts.
-- Conversion to agriculture results in cooling, while conversion from agriculture generally results in warming.
-- In general, the more the vegetation covers an area of land, the cooler its contribution to surface temperature.
-- Deforestation generally results in warming, with the exception of a shift from forest to agriculture
-- The temperature effect of planting a new forest is unclear.
By Doyle Rice
Monday, November 09, 2009
World leaders needed at talks to cut climate deal
FROM: San Diego Union-Tribune
BARCELONA, Spain — After two years of tough U.N. climate talks often pitting the world's rich against the poor, negotiators said Friday a new global agreement now rides on industrial nations pledging profound emissions cuts next month in Copenhagen.
Negotiators from industrial nations, including the United States, said eleventh-hour promises are possible and a global warming pact can be reached.
But developing countries complained that pledges so far were nowhere near enough to avoid a catastrophe, and that world leaders need to take part in the 192-nation conference on Dec. 7-18 to cut a meaningful deal.
"Part of the frustration is that a deal is so close ... all the elements are there," said Kevin Conrad, the delegate from Papua New Guinea. "But it's absolutely conceivable for senior people to come together and spend a week and clean all this up."
The United States was universally seen as the linchpin to a deal, but it has been unable to present its position or pledge emissions targets because of the slow progress of climate legislation in Congress. "Everyone else wants to calibrate against" the Americans, Conrad said.
With the U.S. position still unclear, expectations at this week's U.N. talks in Spain shifted toward a political agreement in which rich nations would pledge to reduce emissions and to finance aid to help the world's poorest cope with the effects of Earth's rising temperatures.
Under such a deal, nations would agree to stick to their promises while negotiating the treaty, taking as long as a year. If world leaders come to Copenhagen to endorse the deal, those promises would carry more weight, delegates said.
At least 40 leaders are expected, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Former Vice President Al Gore said he believes President Barack Obama will attend, although the White House has not confirmed that. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil has indicated he may come, and a spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said she is keeping the date open.
Yvo de Boer, the U.N. official who is shepherding the talks, said negotiators still hoped to achieve a significant agreement setting specific goals.
"Governments can deliver a strong deal in Copenhagen," de Boer said, adding that it would be hard for developed countries "to wiggle out" of any written commitments.
The deal may take the form of consensus decisions, including an overarching statement of long-term objectives, along with a series of supplemental decisions on technology transfers, rewards for halting deforestation, and building infrastructure in poor countries to adapt to global warming, delegates said.
Developing nations were mistrustful of any result that did not hold wealthy nations to legally binding targets, citing past broken promises in development aid and famine relief.
The aim of the negotiations has been to broker an agreement building on the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Without a new one, carbon emissions will have no international regulation, which would hinder the ability of industry to factor in the price of carbon and plan future business.
While some countries, such as Germany and Britain, are meeting their Kyoto emission-reduction targets, others have not. Canada's emissions grew by more than 25 percent from 1990 to 2007, U.N. figures show, although it committed to reduce them 6 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. Japan's grew 9 percent in that period, compared with a target of minus 6 percent.
De Boer was looking to Washington to announce a clear emissions target for 2020, saying "a number from the president of the United States would have huge weight."
"The United States is interested in the strongest possible agreement we can get from this process," said Jonathan Pershing, the chief U.S. delegate to the talks. He showed impatience with developing nations for wanting to hold rich nations to legally enforceable targets while arguing they should be exempt from them.
"We are looking for parallelism. We are not looking for imbalance," he said.
He declined to say whether the U.S. will be ready to submit a target for the Copenhagen accord, adding that Obama has the authority to make a commitment without congressional approval, "but a decision on whether or not we will do it has not yet been made."
U.N. scientists say rich countries must cut carbon emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 to prevent Earth's temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above its average temperature before the industrial era began 150 years ago. Anything rise beyond that could trigger climate catastrophe.
So far, reduction pledges total 11 percent to 15 percent. But those could be seen as negotiable.
The wider issue of ending the Copenhagen conference without a legally binding agreement disappointed developing nations already suffering droughts, floods and other disasters blamed on rising temperatures. Those countries urged negotiators not to give up on a binding pact in Copenhagen.
South Africa's chief negotiator, Alf Wills, warned against promoting a watered-down text, saying "we will not accept a weak, green-wash outcome."
The European Union said it wanted the most ambitious deal possible. "We are going to change the fundamentals of industrial civilization, so it's no wonder there is a lot of activity going on in a negotiation like this," said Anders Turresson of Sweden.
The Associated Press
BARCELONA, Spain — After two years of tough U.N. climate talks often pitting the world's rich against the poor, negotiators said Friday a new global agreement now rides on industrial nations pledging profound emissions cuts next month in Copenhagen.
Negotiators from industrial nations, including the United States, said eleventh-hour promises are possible and a global warming pact can be reached.
But developing countries complained that pledges so far were nowhere near enough to avoid a catastrophe, and that world leaders need to take part in the 192-nation conference on Dec. 7-18 to cut a meaningful deal.
"Part of the frustration is that a deal is so close ... all the elements are there," said Kevin Conrad, the delegate from Papua New Guinea. "But it's absolutely conceivable for senior people to come together and spend a week and clean all this up."
The United States was universally seen as the linchpin to a deal, but it has been unable to present its position or pledge emissions targets because of the slow progress of climate legislation in Congress. "Everyone else wants to calibrate against" the Americans, Conrad said.
With the U.S. position still unclear, expectations at this week's U.N. talks in Spain shifted toward a political agreement in which rich nations would pledge to reduce emissions and to finance aid to help the world's poorest cope with the effects of Earth's rising temperatures.
Under such a deal, nations would agree to stick to their promises while negotiating the treaty, taking as long as a year. If world leaders come to Copenhagen to endorse the deal, those promises would carry more weight, delegates said.
At least 40 leaders are expected, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Former Vice President Al Gore said he believes President Barack Obama will attend, although the White House has not confirmed that. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil has indicated he may come, and a spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said she is keeping the date open.
Yvo de Boer, the U.N. official who is shepherding the talks, said negotiators still hoped to achieve a significant agreement setting specific goals.
"Governments can deliver a strong deal in Copenhagen," de Boer said, adding that it would be hard for developed countries "to wiggle out" of any written commitments.
The deal may take the form of consensus decisions, including an overarching statement of long-term objectives, along with a series of supplemental decisions on technology transfers, rewards for halting deforestation, and building infrastructure in poor countries to adapt to global warming, delegates said.
Developing nations were mistrustful of any result that did not hold wealthy nations to legally binding targets, citing past broken promises in development aid and famine relief.
The aim of the negotiations has been to broker an agreement building on the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Without a new one, carbon emissions will have no international regulation, which would hinder the ability of industry to factor in the price of carbon and plan future business.
While some countries, such as Germany and Britain, are meeting their Kyoto emission-reduction targets, others have not. Canada's emissions grew by more than 25 percent from 1990 to 2007, U.N. figures show, although it committed to reduce them 6 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. Japan's grew 9 percent in that period, compared with a target of minus 6 percent.
De Boer was looking to Washington to announce a clear emissions target for 2020, saying "a number from the president of the United States would have huge weight."
"The United States is interested in the strongest possible agreement we can get from this process," said Jonathan Pershing, the chief U.S. delegate to the talks. He showed impatience with developing nations for wanting to hold rich nations to legally enforceable targets while arguing they should be exempt from them.
"We are looking for parallelism. We are not looking for imbalance," he said.
He declined to say whether the U.S. will be ready to submit a target for the Copenhagen accord, adding that Obama has the authority to make a commitment without congressional approval, "but a decision on whether or not we will do it has not yet been made."
U.N. scientists say rich countries must cut carbon emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 to prevent Earth's temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above its average temperature before the industrial era began 150 years ago. Anything rise beyond that could trigger climate catastrophe.
So far, reduction pledges total 11 percent to 15 percent. But those could be seen as negotiable.
The wider issue of ending the Copenhagen conference without a legally binding agreement disappointed developing nations already suffering droughts, floods and other disasters blamed on rising temperatures. Those countries urged negotiators not to give up on a binding pact in Copenhagen.
South Africa's chief negotiator, Alf Wills, warned against promoting a watered-down text, saying "we will not accept a weak, green-wash outcome."
The European Union said it wanted the most ambitious deal possible. "We are going to change the fundamentals of industrial civilization, so it's no wonder there is a lot of activity going on in a negotiation like this," said Anders Turresson of Sweden.
The Associated Press
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Harvesting precious rainwater
FROM: San Diego Union-Tribune
During the first rainy season after his move into a ranch-style home above Lake Hodges, Bill Toone was amazed at the “river of water” swirling down his driveway and into a storm drain across the street.
“It’s so counterintuitive to design communities to take rainwater away,” he says. “Do we really want water to leave our property where it can water plants, clean the soil and refresh the aquifer?”
Today Toone has reduced runoff from his property to zero, through landscape changes and construction of a rainwater collection system that cost him less than $3,000. During typical winter rains, To one captures an estimated 200,000 gallons of water that percolate into the ground or are stored in tanks for irrigation of his extensive gardens and orchard.
Does that seem like a lot for a region that averages only 10 inches of precipitation a year? Even in semiarid areas, rainwater runoff is substantial. A commonly accepted calculation shows that one inch of rain falling on a 1,000-square-foot roof generates 600 gallons of collectible water. During a San Diego rainy season, that runoff alone is enough to fill a 3-foot-deep 16-by-20-foot pool.
To one is an evangelist for this form of water conservation, which is now on the radar of county residents struggling with water rationing, skyrocketing water rates and parched landscapes. The 53-year-old biologist and head of the Encinitas-based Ecolife Foundation brings a global perspective to the cause, having witnessed the drastic water shortages and contamination that imperil people in other countries.
“It’s not about saving money; it’s about saving the world,” he says. “I don’t want my children to pay dearly for the cheap water I got today.”
Rainwater can be harvested with storage tank systems like Toone’s, rain barrels set under a downspout or “spongelike” swales dug into the landscape.
Commonplace in many arid regions of the world, rainwater harvesting has caught on in dry states like Arizona, New Mexico and Texas and drought-stricken areas of the South and East Coast, according to Tim Pope, head of the American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association (ARCSA), a nonprofit group of businesses, community groups and environmentalists.
A year ago, ARCSA estimates, only one in a million U.S. homeowners saved rainwater; today, participation has swelled to one in 10,000 homeowners. “People are realizing water is a finite resource,” Pope says. “Using rainwater to flush toilets or water lawns takes them off the grid.”
In recent years, incentives have spurred steps to make every raindrop count. In Arizona, for example, homeowners who install rainwater harvesting systems get up to a $1,000 state tax credit, notes Brad Lancaster, a Tucson-based author of two how-two books and an extensive Web site on the subject (harvestingrainwater.com).
In Southern California, the city of Los Angeles launched a pilot program in July to distribute free rain barrels in three Westside communities, and the city of Santa Monica is offering rebates of up to $100 for rain barrels and $500 for collection systems.
While they applaud conservation, officials with the San Diego County Water Authority, the city of San Diego Water Department and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California say similar incentives aren’t on the horizon here. However, as part of its efforts to reduce polluted runoff, San Diego’s Department of Storm Water is in the process of evaluating a variety of rainwater collection systems installed in April at six municipal sites around the county. (Details are at sandiego.gov/thinkblue/outreach/factsheets.shtml.)
“Any way we can use rainwater productively on properties is great,” says Bill Rose, water conservation executive for County Water Authority. “Whether this idea becomes mainstream will come down to cost-benefits. If it’s simple to do and low cost, then it will have appeal.”
In 2008, the Olivenhain Municipal Water District offered a $50 rain barrel rebate to its agricultural customers who are smarting under 30 percent water cutbacks. There were no takers, recalls spokesman Joseph Randall, but the agency may try a similar program with homeowners in the future.
“These days,” he says, “we have to look at all the different tools for enhanced conservation, especially at the homeowner level.”
Do it yourself
Home rainwater collection often starts with a rain barrel or other inexpensive container connected to a downspout. Typically, rain barrels hold 65 to 350 gallons and cost about $200 to $1,000.
Sturdy barrels are recommended to preserve water quality, to prevent algae and mosquito breeding, and to protect children and wild animals from drowning. Quality barrels are thick enough to keep out sunlight and include a debris screen, lid and hose bib for distribution.
“When folks see how fast one of these barrels fills up, they move up to bigger systems with one or more tanks,” says Michael Ray, a vice president of sales and marketing for BushmanUSA, a Temecula-based manufacturer of rainwater collection systems developed in Australia.
“In five years,” he predicts, “rainwater collection will be adopted; in 10 years it will be mandated as it is in Australia. There they don’t let a single drop go down the drain.”
For homeowners who want to upgrade, BushmanUSA offers a trio of options, available by special order at Grangetto’s stores. Slimline tanks only 2 feet wide, 4 to 7 feet long and up to 6 feet tall can be tucked under eaves and linked to store more than 1,800 gallons. Available in “HOA friendly” colors, they range from $680 to $1,930 each.
More storage capacity can be found in BushmanUSA’s low-profile round tanks, 4-feet tall and 6-feet across, that resemble dwarf silos and can be concealed under a deck. Each holds 1,000 gallons and costs about $1,500.
Finally, BushmanUSA offers an aboveground tank 7.7 feet tall and 8.6 feet wide that can store 2,825 gallons. Suggested retail price is $2,000.
With any of these options, Ray recommends a first flush device that diverts early polluted runoff from the tank and a sophisticated pump linked to an irrigation timer that moves water to sprinkler or drip systems.
Bill Toone’s do-it-yourself system utilizes above- and below-ground tanks. The exposed tank just steps from the front door was deliberately sited to provoke questions from passers-by.
“I want people to see it and ask me about it,” says Toone, who is part of a collaborative effort to install a demonstration rainwater collection system at the Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College in El Cajon.
His 4-foot-tall tank cost about $750 and holds 1,100 gallons. Rainwater from a downspout drops into an underground basin where a sump pump (about $150) sends it through pipes to the tank about 15 feet away.
Two more tanks, 1,000-gallon hot water holding tanks salvaged from a nearby condo project, are underground in the rear of the property. A Grundfos on-demand pump (about $340) brings the water through a hose with the same pressure as city tap water.
Rainwater collection, To one believes, shouldn’t be difficult or onerous. He and his wife, Sunni Black, water thirsty avocado trees, a kitchen garden with dozens of heirloom tomato plants and patch of lawn (browning in summer’s heat) that feeds their three pet tortoises.
“It’s all about balance,” he says. “The big challenge of conservation today is showing people they don’t have to give up their quality of life to do the right thing. I think you do smart things and the quality of life you want will be maintained.”
The good earth
In addition to collecting rain, Toone made changes to stop runoff from his property.
Early on, he demolished the concrete circular driveway that sped rain from his sloped front yard to a storm drain. Then he leveled the yard with fill from a neighbor’s swimming pool excavation and built a retaining wall at the front edge of the lot to hold the soil in place.
A colorful drought-tolerant garden tops the flat ground. Verbenas, sages, lavenders and other plants are circled with rimmed “water bowls” that hold water so it can seep into the soil.
These bowl are a mini-version of earthworks or “rain gardens,” man-made, kidney-shaped depressions 1 foot deep and up to 10 feet long in a flat or gently sloped landscape that slow and capture runoff. Brad Lancaster calls them “sponges” and touts them as the simplest way to collect rainwater. “All you need is a shovel,” he says.
Detailed instructions, including those for earthworks for steeper terrain, can be found in the second of Lancaster’s books on rainwater collection and on the Internet by Googling “rain gardens.”
Downspouts and overflow pipes from rain barrels and tanks can be directed to earthworks, says Lancaster, who recommends locating them at least 10 feet from a home to prevent water damage. He also advises lining the earthworks with 4 inches of mulch and landscaping them with natives attuned to natural rain cycles.
“They can be beautiful as well as practical,” he says. “After all, soil is the largest and least expensive storage tank.”
Mary James is a freelance garden writer based in La Mesa. She also is executive editor of California Garden, the 100-year-old magazine of the San Diego Floral Association.
During the first rainy season after his move into a ranch-style home above Lake Hodges, Bill Toone was amazed at the “river of water” swirling down his driveway and into a storm drain across the street.
“It’s so counterintuitive to design communities to take rainwater away,” he says. “Do we really want water to leave our property where it can water plants, clean the soil and refresh the aquifer?”
Today Toone has reduced runoff from his property to zero, through landscape changes and construction of a rainwater collection system that cost him less than $3,000. During typical winter rains, To one captures an estimated 200,000 gallons of water that percolate into the ground or are stored in tanks for irrigation of his extensive gardens and orchard.
Does that seem like a lot for a region that averages only 10 inches of precipitation a year? Even in semiarid areas, rainwater runoff is substantial. A commonly accepted calculation shows that one inch of rain falling on a 1,000-square-foot roof generates 600 gallons of collectible water. During a San Diego rainy season, that runoff alone is enough to fill a 3-foot-deep 16-by-20-foot pool.
To one is an evangelist for this form of water conservation, which is now on the radar of county residents struggling with water rationing, skyrocketing water rates and parched landscapes. The 53-year-old biologist and head of the Encinitas-based Ecolife Foundation brings a global perspective to the cause, having witnessed the drastic water shortages and contamination that imperil people in other countries.
“It’s not about saving money; it’s about saving the world,” he says. “I don’t want my children to pay dearly for the cheap water I got today.”
Rainwater can be harvested with storage tank systems like Toone’s, rain barrels set under a downspout or “spongelike” swales dug into the landscape.
Commonplace in many arid regions of the world, rainwater harvesting has caught on in dry states like Arizona, New Mexico and Texas and drought-stricken areas of the South and East Coast, according to Tim Pope, head of the American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association (ARCSA), a nonprofit group of businesses, community groups and environmentalists.
A year ago, ARCSA estimates, only one in a million U.S. homeowners saved rainwater; today, participation has swelled to one in 10,000 homeowners. “People are realizing water is a finite resource,” Pope says. “Using rainwater to flush toilets or water lawns takes them off the grid.”
In recent years, incentives have spurred steps to make every raindrop count. In Arizona, for example, homeowners who install rainwater harvesting systems get up to a $1,000 state tax credit, notes Brad Lancaster, a Tucson-based author of two how-two books and an extensive Web site on the subject (harvestingrainwater.com).
In Southern California, the city of Los Angeles launched a pilot program in July to distribute free rain barrels in three Westside communities, and the city of Santa Monica is offering rebates of up to $100 for rain barrels and $500 for collection systems.
While they applaud conservation, officials with the San Diego County Water Authority, the city of San Diego Water Department and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California say similar incentives aren’t on the horizon here. However, as part of its efforts to reduce polluted runoff, San Diego’s Department of Storm Water is in the process of evaluating a variety of rainwater collection systems installed in April at six municipal sites around the county. (Details are at sandiego.gov/thinkblue/outreach/factsheets.shtml.)
“Any way we can use rainwater productively on properties is great,” says Bill Rose, water conservation executive for County Water Authority. “Whether this idea becomes mainstream will come down to cost-benefits. If it’s simple to do and low cost, then it will have appeal.”
In 2008, the Olivenhain Municipal Water District offered a $50 rain barrel rebate to its agricultural customers who are smarting under 30 percent water cutbacks. There were no takers, recalls spokesman Joseph Randall, but the agency may try a similar program with homeowners in the future.
“These days,” he says, “we have to look at all the different tools for enhanced conservation, especially at the homeowner level.”
Do it yourself
Home rainwater collection often starts with a rain barrel or other inexpensive container connected to a downspout. Typically, rain barrels hold 65 to 350 gallons and cost about $200 to $1,000.
Sturdy barrels are recommended to preserve water quality, to prevent algae and mosquito breeding, and to protect children and wild animals from drowning. Quality barrels are thick enough to keep out sunlight and include a debris screen, lid and hose bib for distribution.
“When folks see how fast one of these barrels fills up, they move up to bigger systems with one or more tanks,” says Michael Ray, a vice president of sales and marketing for BushmanUSA, a Temecula-based manufacturer of rainwater collection systems developed in Australia.
“In five years,” he predicts, “rainwater collection will be adopted; in 10 years it will be mandated as it is in Australia. There they don’t let a single drop go down the drain.”
For homeowners who want to upgrade, BushmanUSA offers a trio of options, available by special order at Grangetto’s stores. Slimline tanks only 2 feet wide, 4 to 7 feet long and up to 6 feet tall can be tucked under eaves and linked to store more than 1,800 gallons. Available in “HOA friendly” colors, they range from $680 to $1,930 each.
More storage capacity can be found in BushmanUSA’s low-profile round tanks, 4-feet tall and 6-feet across, that resemble dwarf silos and can be concealed under a deck. Each holds 1,000 gallons and costs about $1,500.
Finally, BushmanUSA offers an aboveground tank 7.7 feet tall and 8.6 feet wide that can store 2,825 gallons. Suggested retail price is $2,000.
With any of these options, Ray recommends a first flush device that diverts early polluted runoff from the tank and a sophisticated pump linked to an irrigation timer that moves water to sprinkler or drip systems.
Bill Toone’s do-it-yourself system utilizes above- and below-ground tanks. The exposed tank just steps from the front door was deliberately sited to provoke questions from passers-by.
“I want people to see it and ask me about it,” says Toone, who is part of a collaborative effort to install a demonstration rainwater collection system at the Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College in El Cajon.
His 4-foot-tall tank cost about $750 and holds 1,100 gallons. Rainwater from a downspout drops into an underground basin where a sump pump (about $150) sends it through pipes to the tank about 15 feet away.
Two more tanks, 1,000-gallon hot water holding tanks salvaged from a nearby condo project, are underground in the rear of the property. A Grundfos on-demand pump (about $340) brings the water through a hose with the same pressure as city tap water.
Rainwater collection, To one believes, shouldn’t be difficult or onerous. He and his wife, Sunni Black, water thirsty avocado trees, a kitchen garden with dozens of heirloom tomato plants and patch of lawn (browning in summer’s heat) that feeds their three pet tortoises.
“It’s all about balance,” he says. “The big challenge of conservation today is showing people they don’t have to give up their quality of life to do the right thing. I think you do smart things and the quality of life you want will be maintained.”
The good earth
In addition to collecting rain, Toone made changes to stop runoff from his property.
Early on, he demolished the concrete circular driveway that sped rain from his sloped front yard to a storm drain. Then he leveled the yard with fill from a neighbor’s swimming pool excavation and built a retaining wall at the front edge of the lot to hold the soil in place.
A colorful drought-tolerant garden tops the flat ground. Verbenas, sages, lavenders and other plants are circled with rimmed “water bowls” that hold water so it can seep into the soil.
These bowl are a mini-version of earthworks or “rain gardens,” man-made, kidney-shaped depressions 1 foot deep and up to 10 feet long in a flat or gently sloped landscape that slow and capture runoff. Brad Lancaster calls them “sponges” and touts them as the simplest way to collect rainwater. “All you need is a shovel,” he says.
Detailed instructions, including those for earthworks for steeper terrain, can be found in the second of Lancaster’s books on rainwater collection and on the Internet by Googling “rain gardens.”
Downspouts and overflow pipes from rain barrels and tanks can be directed to earthworks, says Lancaster, who recommends locating them at least 10 feet from a home to prevent water damage. He also advises lining the earthworks with 4 inches of mulch and landscaping them with natives attuned to natural rain cycles.
“They can be beautiful as well as practical,” he says. “After all, soil is the largest and least expensive storage tank.”
Mary James is a freelance garden writer based in La Mesa. She also is executive editor of California Garden, the 100-year-old magazine of the San Diego Floral Association.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Weekly Drought Monitor - as of November 3rd, 2009
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Survey: Economists see threat in climate change
FROM: USA Today
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Researchers who deal in cold numbers rather than warming climates believe the "significant benefits from curbing greenhouse-gas emissions would justify the costs of action," a new survey finds.
In fact, the survey of economists finds 94% believe the U.S. should join climate agreements to limit global warming.
The survey results to be released today come as debate over the economics of global warming moves center stage in Washington, D.C. Republican senators boycotted a hearing Tuesday over an Environmental Protection Agency analysis about the costs of a clean-energy bill. In addition, the United States and European Union are preparing for a December meeting in Copenhagen to discuss a climate treaty.
"An economist tree hugger is an imaginary creature," says Michael Livermore of New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, which conducted the survey. "But we found that economists really see climate change poses a lot of risk to the economy."
The survey approached the 289 economists who had published climate-related studies in the top 25 economics journals in the past 15 years. About half, 144, responded, and 75% agreed or strongly agreed on the "value" of greenhouse-gas controls.
In 2006, the British government found that charging industries a fee for greenhouse-gas emissions would reduce gross domestic product globally about 1% by 2050. Last month, a National Research Council report found that burning fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, exerts a hidden $120 billion cost on the U.S. economy because of higher health costs, leaving aside climate damage.
Greenhouse gases are transparent to sunlight but retain heat, warming the atmosphere. Industrial greenhouse-gas emissions have raised global average temperatures about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1905, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and will likely increase them from 3 to 7 degrees more by 2100.
"Many observers look at economists as skeptics of the need for (climate) mitigation," says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. But "most accept the unquestionable consensus from the natural scientist that the planet is warming and humans are to blame."
In the survey of economists:
•91.6% wanted a tax or "cap and trade" system, where polluters buy and sell emission permits, instead of regulation, to cut greenhouse gases.
•84% agreed the effects of global warming "create significant risks" to the economy, particularly to agriculture, fishing, insurance and health.
•Of the 94.3% who favor the U.S. joining climate agreements to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, 57% say greenhouse-gas cuts should come "regardless of the actions of other countries."
Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which opposes limits to greenhouse gases, says the economists polled "vastly exaggerate the potential damages and vastly understate the costs of reducing emissions."
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Researchers who deal in cold numbers rather than warming climates believe the "significant benefits from curbing greenhouse-gas emissions would justify the costs of action," a new survey finds.
In fact, the survey of economists finds 94% believe the U.S. should join climate agreements to limit global warming.
The survey results to be released today come as debate over the economics of global warming moves center stage in Washington, D.C. Republican senators boycotted a hearing Tuesday over an Environmental Protection Agency analysis about the costs of a clean-energy bill. In addition, the United States and European Union are preparing for a December meeting in Copenhagen to discuss a climate treaty.
"An economist tree hugger is an imaginary creature," says Michael Livermore of New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity, which conducted the survey. "But we found that economists really see climate change poses a lot of risk to the economy."
The survey approached the 289 economists who had published climate-related studies in the top 25 economics journals in the past 15 years. About half, 144, responded, and 75% agreed or strongly agreed on the "value" of greenhouse-gas controls.
In 2006, the British government found that charging industries a fee for greenhouse-gas emissions would reduce gross domestic product globally about 1% by 2050. Last month, a National Research Council report found that burning fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, exerts a hidden $120 billion cost on the U.S. economy because of higher health costs, leaving aside climate damage.
Greenhouse gases are transparent to sunlight but retain heat, warming the atmosphere. Industrial greenhouse-gas emissions have raised global average temperatures about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1905, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and will likely increase them from 3 to 7 degrees more by 2100.
"Many observers look at economists as skeptics of the need for (climate) mitigation," says economist Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. But "most accept the unquestionable consensus from the natural scientist that the planet is warming and humans are to blame."
In the survey of economists:
•91.6% wanted a tax or "cap and trade" system, where polluters buy and sell emission permits, instead of regulation, to cut greenhouse gases.
•84% agreed the effects of global warming "create significant risks" to the economy, particularly to agriculture, fishing, insurance and health.
•Of the 94.3% who favor the U.S. joining climate agreements to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, 57% say greenhouse-gas cuts should come "regardless of the actions of other countries."
Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which opposes limits to greenhouse gases, says the economists polled "vastly exaggerate the potential damages and vastly understate the costs of reducing emissions."
Monday, November 02, 2009
NOAA Scientists Fly to the Ends of the Earth to Measure Greenhouse Gases
FROM: NOAA
Broomfield, Colo. – NOAA scientists took off Saturday on the second phase of a mission that, when complete, will provide a detailed view of how carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are distributed globally. Monitoring the increasing levels of greenhouse gases and black carbon aerosols in the atmosphere is crucial to understanding human-caused climate change.
“Missions such as this one are critical to understanding the impacts of greenhouse gases and particulates,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The data collected are also essential to help verify if policies to reduce these heat trapping pollutants are having their intended effect.”
Fred Moore and Ryan Spackman, researchers from NOAA’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), took off early Saturday with five NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) instruments on a modified Gulfstream aircraft. Their roller-coaster tour of the planet will take them from pole to pole, dipping and climbing repeatedly between altitudes of 1,000 feet and 47,000 feet. ESRL and CIRES, a joint institute of the University of Colorado and NOAA, are located in Boulder, Colo.
Their flights, planned to continue through December, are part of the HIPPO Mission, a multiagency, multiyear effort to paint a three-dimensional portrait of the atmosphere. HIPPO, for HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations of Greenhouse Gases, is funded and operated jointly by the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and NOAA. HIAPER – the High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform – is the NSF’s Gulfstream V aircraft.
Steve Wofsy of Harvard University is leading HIPPO with a team of scientists from NOAA, NCAR, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, University of Miami, and Princeton University.
“While we have ground-based stations that measure carbon dioxide at specific locations, HIPPO is giving us a view of how carbon dioxide is distributed globally at different altitudes and during different seasons,” said Jim Elkins, Ph.D., a NOAA ESRL atmospheric physicist. The team is pleased with the success of the first phase of HIPPO flights last January, which gathered data in cross-sections of the atmosphere from pole to pole, he said.
Information gathered during these flights will be critical for both climate modelers seeking to understand Earth’s future and policymakers who rely on accurate science for decision-making. This research and decades of greenhouse gas monitoring are part of NOAA’s suite of climate services.
Three more sets of flights are planned over the next two years to fill in additional data during different seasons and from areas where few previous measurements have been made. HIPPO’s second phase will cover the central and eastern Pacific, departing from Colorado with stops in Alaska, Hawaii, Rarotonga of the Cook Islands, New Zealand, Australia, and the Solomon Islands. A fly-over of the NOAA American Samoa observatory is also planned.
NOAA scientists have been monitoring greenhouse gases through a ground-based, global network for nearly 40 years. As these gases move up through different layers of the atmosphere, they may persist for a time or be altered or destroyed in the upper atmosphere. The HIPPO Mission flights will give scientists a clearer picture of the distribution of greenhouse gases throughout the atmosphere.
NOAA scientists designed five instruments for analyzing air samples onboard HIPPO flights. They have the ability to detect and measure more than 30 major and minor greenhouse gases as well as water vapor, ozone, and soot particles.
“We are providing flight planning and weather support, measurements of all greenhouse gases and some carbon isotopes, and in-flight measurement of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases and black carbon,” Elkins said.
Eric Hintsa of CIRES and Elkins will be flying on subsequent legs of HIPPO phase II. Other scientists involved in leadership, flight planning and overall coordination on the ground are Steven Montzka, David Fahey, Ru-shan Gao, and Karen Rosenlof of NOAA, and Geoff Dutton, Molly Heller, Ben Miller, J. David Nance, Eric Ray, Joshua Schwarz, Colm Sweeney, Jack Higgs, and Sonja Wolter of CIRES.
Broomfield, Colo. – NOAA scientists took off Saturday on the second phase of a mission that, when complete, will provide a detailed view of how carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are distributed globally. Monitoring the increasing levels of greenhouse gases and black carbon aerosols in the atmosphere is crucial to understanding human-caused climate change.
“Missions such as this one are critical to understanding the impacts of greenhouse gases and particulates,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The data collected are also essential to help verify if policies to reduce these heat trapping pollutants are having their intended effect.”
Fred Moore and Ryan Spackman, researchers from NOAA’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), took off early Saturday with five NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) instruments on a modified Gulfstream aircraft. Their roller-coaster tour of the planet will take them from pole to pole, dipping and climbing repeatedly between altitudes of 1,000 feet and 47,000 feet. ESRL and CIRES, a joint institute of the University of Colorado and NOAA, are located in Boulder, Colo.
Their flights, planned to continue through December, are part of the HIPPO Mission, a multiagency, multiyear effort to paint a three-dimensional portrait of the atmosphere. HIPPO, for HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations of Greenhouse Gases, is funded and operated jointly by the National Science Foundation, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and NOAA. HIAPER – the High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform – is the NSF’s Gulfstream V aircraft.
Steve Wofsy of Harvard University is leading HIPPO with a team of scientists from NOAA, NCAR, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, University of Miami, and Princeton University.
“While we have ground-based stations that measure carbon dioxide at specific locations, HIPPO is giving us a view of how carbon dioxide is distributed globally at different altitudes and during different seasons,” said Jim Elkins, Ph.D., a NOAA ESRL atmospheric physicist. The team is pleased with the success of the first phase of HIPPO flights last January, which gathered data in cross-sections of the atmosphere from pole to pole, he said.
Information gathered during these flights will be critical for both climate modelers seeking to understand Earth’s future and policymakers who rely on accurate science for decision-making. This research and decades of greenhouse gas monitoring are part of NOAA’s suite of climate services.
Three more sets of flights are planned over the next two years to fill in additional data during different seasons and from areas where few previous measurements have been made. HIPPO’s second phase will cover the central and eastern Pacific, departing from Colorado with stops in Alaska, Hawaii, Rarotonga of the Cook Islands, New Zealand, Australia, and the Solomon Islands. A fly-over of the NOAA American Samoa observatory is also planned.
NOAA scientists have been monitoring greenhouse gases through a ground-based, global network for nearly 40 years. As these gases move up through different layers of the atmosphere, they may persist for a time or be altered or destroyed in the upper atmosphere. The HIPPO Mission flights will give scientists a clearer picture of the distribution of greenhouse gases throughout the atmosphere.
NOAA scientists designed five instruments for analyzing air samples onboard HIPPO flights. They have the ability to detect and measure more than 30 major and minor greenhouse gases as well as water vapor, ozone, and soot particles.
“We are providing flight planning and weather support, measurements of all greenhouse gases and some carbon isotopes, and in-flight measurement of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases and black carbon,” Elkins said.
Eric Hintsa of CIRES and Elkins will be flying on subsequent legs of HIPPO phase II. Other scientists involved in leadership, flight planning and overall coordination on the ground are Steven Montzka, David Fahey, Ru-shan Gao, and Karen Rosenlof of NOAA, and Geoff Dutton, Molly Heller, Ben Miller, J. David Nance, Eric Ray, Joshua Schwarz, Colm Sweeney, Jack Higgs, and Sonja Wolter of CIRES.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
