Clouds of Uncertainty

                                                                                                                              Bill Fintel photo

The title link is to a USA Today article reporting on cloud studies from 2000 to 2010 by Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M. Dessler says his study shows clouds will have a positive feedback on greenhouse gas induced global warming. In other words, more warming will occur than just that caused by greenhouse gases.

The article cites a rebuttal to Dessler's study by climate change skeptic, Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama. Spencer believes clouds will provide a negative feedback and moderate greenhouse gas induced global warming. Overall, an interesting article from which you can draw your own conclusions.

Geoengineering support moving ahead...cautiously

The title link is to an AP article about geoengineering, and why it is receiving more support, including research funding. Following are some quotes from the article:

"The taboo is broken," Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric scientist, told The Associated Press.

Whatever the doubts, "we are amazingly farther up the road on geoengineering," Crutzen, who wrote a 2006 scientific article that sparked interest in geoengineering, said by telephone from Germany.

In September, the U.S. Government Accountability Office recommended in a 70-page report that the White House "establish a clear strategy for geoengineering research" within its science office.

Perhaps most significantly, the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, the global authority on climate science, agreed in October to take on geoengineering in its next assessment report. Its hundreds of scientists will begin with a session next spring."

Artic Tundra Tipping Point?

                                                                                                         Arthur Max / Associated Press

"Scientist Sergey Zimov says Siberia's total carbon storage is equivalent to all the world's rain forests."

Have you been to Chersky, Russia? I haven't, but it is a fascinating place where Russian scientist Sergey Zimov is studying methane release from the frozen, but thawing arctic tundra. Bottom line? This really does look like a potential climate change tipping point, as methane is more than 20x as powerful a greenhouse gas compared to CO2. Fortunately, methane is also relatively short-lived compared to CO2.

390 and rising

The title link is to the NASA Climate Key Indicators page, and it shows we have just reached 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Additionally, you can find sea level rise, average surface temperature increase, and ice melting rates, all of which point to a warming earth.

Eagles, Wind and Solar

The linked article is about the Philadelphia Eagles, and how they plan to spend $30 million on wind and solar power for their stadium, and that they expect this will save them $60 million in energy costs over the next 20 years. Presumably this savings includes their plans to sell excess energy back to the grid. It almost seems to good to be true. Still an admirable undertaking.

Prospects for Cancun, and a proposed plan

From the linked Wall Street Journal editorial by Bjorn Lomborg:
"Attendees in Cancun will be singing the same tune that they did last year: Nations must commit themselves to drastic, immediate carbon cuts. This ignores both economic reality and 20 years of experience that tell us that this policy choice is incredibly expensive, utterly ineffective and ultimately politically unsellable.

.................World-wide public spending on research and development for clean energy technologies is a paltry $2 billion a year. Increasing this to $100 billion a year could be a game-changer. Not only would it be almost twice as cheap as the $180 billion a year cost of fully implementing Kyoto, but the effect of this kind of spending would be hundreds of times greater. But this should not be our only response to global warming. We should also invest considerably more in adaptation to global warming's effects, and research geo-engineering technologies as a potential backstop."

Geoengineering: Ban or Study?

At the recent meeting of the Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, member nations came out with the following statement concerning geoengineering:

"No climate-related geo-engineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small-scale scientific research studies [under controlled circumstances]."

It appears their primary goal is to prevent large scale tests of geoengineering.

In the same Times article, Bart Gordon, current chair of the House Committe on Science and Technology, is quoted as saying:

"Climate engineering carries with it a tremendous range of uncertainties and possibilities, ethical and political concerns, and the potential for catastrophic side effects. If we find ourselves passing an environmental tipping point, we will need to have done research to understand our options."

And the article's author, Bryan Walsh, says:

"Geoengineering is potentially dangerous—but so is climate change. Banning research in the field could deprive humanity of a last-ditch weapon should global warming spin out of control. And we'll never know how effective geoengineering could be—or how risky—unless scientists are allowed to do their work."

C40 Cities

A little more good news concerning climate action. Mayors from many of the world's largest cities met Nov 5 in Hong Kong to discuss action to reduce their carbon footprint. From the title link article:

"Each of our cities share common goals -- to reduce our carbon footprint, to make our environment more livable and to join hands to combat global warming and climate change," Hong Kong's chief executive Donald Tsang told delegates at the C40 forum, which started Friday.

"Cities are home to more than half of the world's population, they consume over two-thirds of the world's energy and emit more than 70 percent of total carbon dioxides."

For more information about C40 Cities, visit their web site.

Solar Thermal Progress in the U.S.

Even though the title of this NY Times article is somewhat pessimistic, after reading the article, I felt optimistic that large scale solar power generation projects are indeed moving forward. The following paragraph provides a nice summary of, Solar Power Projects Face Potential Hurdles:

"The Ivanpah plant is the first of nine multibillion-dollar solar farms in California and Arizona that are expected to begin construction before the end of the year as developers race to qualify for tens of billions of dollars in federal grants and loan guarantees that are about to expire. The new plants will generate nearly 4,000 megawatts of electricity if built — enough to power three million homes."

"Unlike the photovoltaic panel systems found on rooftops, most of the new solar plants will use thousands of large mirrors to heat liquids to generate steam that drives conventional electricity-generating turbines." (Click on the 'solar energy'  in labels below to see previous posts with more details of solar thermal technology.)

The current concern is that the federal incentives now being offered will expire before the projects clear all the regulatory approvals.

How to Cool the Planet by Jeff Goodall (post #1)

This is a book I have just begun to read, and so far I am very impressed. Jeff Goodall not only presents the science of geoengineering, but perhaps of greater importance, he clarifies some of the human and political aspects, and their probable side effects not necessarily linked to the science.

For instance, Jeff takes us back to experience the rainmakers of the old west, like Charles Hatfield, and more recently, nuclear "plowshare" scientists, like Edward Teller. Jeff's message? That any real attempt at geoengineering will be open to all sorts of claims about the bad effects it causes, like floods, droughts, etc. And at least for now, so much of these unwanted effects will be almost impossible to attribute to natural versus man-made causes. Net result? Geoengineering will face potentially huge criticism, whether justified or unjustified.

Thought provoking reading! I will add more posts as I read more.

Climate Denial....Geoengineering the only hope?

You may take exception with my statement that reducing atmospheric CO2 levels in the coming century is unlikely, and in truth I hope I am wrong, but just read the title link to a NY Times editorial before you get too optimistic.

And follow that up with this Dana Milbank editorial, the last sentence of which is: "Geoengineering isn't a magic bullet. But at a time when a Democratic Senate candidate is firing live ammo at the cap-and-trade bill, it's worth a shot."