Capture Methane as a first priority

This link is to a Wall Street Journal article entitled "A Fast, Cheap Way to Cool the Planet". The gist of it is that methane is a much more potent greenhouse than CO2, it is relatively short-lived, so what is already in the atmosphere will disappear quickly, AND it is relatively easy to capture  methane with existing technology of modest cost. The approach certainly makes sense, and is presented by two authors with excellent credentials. A recommended article, which you may need to log in to read.

"Scientific studies, such as the EPA's June 2006 report, "Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases," conservatively indicate that we could eliminate 1.3 gigatons of annual CO2 equivalent emissions—that's half the U.S. power industry's emissions—just by targeting landfills, coal mines, and oil and gas leaks."

Seas Grow Less Effective at Absorbing Emissions

This link is to an article in the NY Times pointed out by Roz Troupin. It summarizes a detailed article in Nature by the three authors. Their basic conclusion, supported by extensive data analysis, is that the seas are absorbing less CO2 than they used to because they are becoming more acidic. This is not an unexpected result, but the magnitude is now better quantified.

"The research suggests that the seas cannot indefinitely be considered a reliable “carbon sink” as humans generate heat-trapping gases linked to global warming."

Nuclear Power expansion

South Korea won a contract to supply the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with 4 nuclear power plants, and in doing so edged out France and a US-Japan consortium led by GE and Hitachi. South Korea presently has 20 nuclear power plants in operation and 8 under construction. The linked article from The Korea Herald provides some interesting comparisons about costs and construction times.

In US nuclear power news, there is increasing talk of government guarantees to companies constructing new nuclear power plants. "We are on track to announce the first loan guarantee soon," said Stephanie Mueller, a department (of Energy) spokeswoman.

REDD and the amended Lacey Act

This link is to an article on the World Resources Institute site (WRI).
"On May 22, 2008, the U.S. Congress passed a landmark amendment to the 100 year-old Lacey Act, originally enacted to prohibit the transportation of illegally captured animals or wildlife products across state lines. The new law extended this protection to plants - including timber, paper, and other forest products - thereby giving the U.S. government a powerful tool to eliminate illegally sourced wood and increase transparency in the global forest product supply chain."

The article highlights the first enforcement action under the amended Lacey Act, and also points out that the Act could have a significant impact in reducing illegal timber cutting in developing countries.  REDD is the widely adopted acronym for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation. UN-REDD was probably one of the Copenhagen convention's most agreed upon approaches to slow global warming.

At the WRI site you can also find a concise legal interpretation of the Copenhagen Accord.

Satellite Terra turns ten

This NASA link is about the amazing scientific and technological success of earth monitoring satellites. It is very uplifting to read a climate-science success story after Copenhagen.

The article makes clear the sensitivity of climate to the earth's albedo, and how complex are the factors, such as cloud cover. Note the highly reflective band around the equator due to clouds, and the fact that almost all solar energy striking Antarctica is reflected back into space.

Copenhagen and Beyond, a NY Times perspective

This link was pointed out by Roz Troupin. It is somewhat different from the previous post's main link in that it has more focus on the key role played by the US, and more details about what lies ahead for the US. You may have to register with the NY Times to read it (first time I did not need to register, 2nd time I did need to, but it is free and simple).

Thin climate accord - A Copenhagen Summary

The above link is to a AP article with a summary of what was, and was not, accomplished in Copenhagen. It also highlights the enormous tasks ahead for all countries.

Key points of the 2 1/2 page Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding agreement by most of the nations attending, are summarized as follows:

_Nations agreed to cooperate in reducing emissions, "with a view" to scientists' warnings to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F) above preindustrial levels, that is, 1.3 degrees C (2.3 degrees F) above today's average temperatures.

_Developing nations will report every two years on their voluntary actions to reduce emissions. Those reports would be subject to "international consultations and analysis" — a concession by China to the U.S.

_Richer nations will finance a $10 billion-a-year, three-year program to fund poorer nations' projects to deal with drought and other climate-change impacts, and to develop clean energy.

_They also set a "goal" of mobilizing $100 billion-a-year by 2020 for the same adaptation and mitigation purposes.

Secretary Clinton to Speak on Worldwide Reproductive Health, 12/21/09

"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will deliver a major speech Monday, December 21, 2009 to mark the 15th year of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). Secretary Clinton will announce the U.S. Government's renewed support for and dedication to reaching the ICPD goals and other related UN agreements, including the Millennium Development Goals, by 2015.

The speech will be live streamed on www.icpd2015.org starting at approximately 3:00 pm. A transcript and video of of the speech will be posted on this site following the event."

U.N. forest-carbon scheme "nearly done"

This article from Reuters starts out very positive, and makes you want to think that some concrete good came out of Copenhagen. But, as you read to the end, the very real threat of the scheme being undone by corrupt governments and local people is disheartening.

Papua New Guinea August 2009 by Bill

Cap-and-Trade Fraud in Europe

It's a lesson to be learned, critics of cap-and-trade say. Creating such a system in the United States would invite "corruption, illegality and criminal activity," much as it has in Europe, said Max Schulz, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

"This is the problem with politicians trying to create a market for something that the free market otherwise doesn't value," Schulz said. "An emissions trading market is an artificially, politically-created market....

"If we pass a system like Europe has, we're going to get all the problems Europe has experienced," he said. "You're asking for a lot of problems."

My thoughts? It's too bad there are so many corrupt people in the world! If you haven't already, read the above post about U. N. Forest-carbon scheme, and note that again the main challenge to this being successful is from corruption.

Trusting Nature as the Climate Referee

The above link to the Science page of the NY Times was supplied by Roz Troupin. It contains a proposal to base a carbon tax on any increase in the Earth's troposphere temperature near the Equator. The rational is that, if the skeptics are correct and the earth is not warming, then no one will have to pay any special carbon taxes (or cap-and-trade costs). But if the earth continues to warm, then the tax will be increased to cover costs of developing low carbon energy sources, and costs of dealing with climate change effects.

At the end of the article is a link to comments about this proposal. I feel most pertinent of these is that the proposed temperature change index has too much lag and variability built into it, and any revenue generated, if the earth continues to warm, will be generated too late to avert any disasters of continued warming. On the plus side, letting Nature make the decisions (she does not go up for re-election) certainly beats letting the politicians and Climate-Gate scientists make the decisions. Perhaps using the new Climate Change Index would make more sense, because it responds much more rapidly than just air temperature, and it incorporates 4 factors as opposed to just one.

Overall, a very interesting concept. Thanks Roz.

Climate-Gate and the Russians

The plot thickens! This link is to a long and detailed article which is more damming than ever re the goings-on behind Climate-Gate. Turns out the emails were leaked to the world from a Russian server in Tomsk, although the Russians deny any involvement. And be sure to see how the "hockey stick" curve was artfully created by terminating tree ring data in 1961. While this news source, Daily Mail, is a tabloid newspaper, the article seems well researched and documented.

Anyway, all along I have said watch sea level as an indicator of global warming, and to that I add arctic sea ice extent.

Climate Change Index

The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme launched a Climate Change Index at the IPCC conference in Copenhagen. This index combines four factors they consider indicative of global climate change: atmospheric CO2 levels, global average temperature, sea level, and arctic sea ice extent.

The three dips in the otherwise steadily upward trend are attributed to major volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 leading to the 1992 index dip. More details about how the index is calculated can be found at the above title link.

My assessment of this index? I think the parameters it includes are both very important and very appropriate. As many of you know, I have always said that global average temperature is a just one of the key parameters to look at relative to climate change, and a highly variable one as well.

East Antarctic Icesheet Loss

Since 2006, the east Antarctic icesheet has lost more than it has gained. Most of the loss is in coastal regions and estimated to be a staggering 57 million metric tons per year. You can read about this latest finding be clicking on the title link.

Himalayan Cabinet Meeting

If you like dramatically illustrated articles, this link is for you. It is about an upcoming cabinet meeting "in the shadow of Mt. Everest" to highlight what global warming is doing to melt mountain glaciers, and the impact this will have on nearby and distant inhabitants.