did ya see the haarp action today h?
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
SRM/GEOENGINEERING
- Thread starter trichrider
- Start date
harold
Member
hi sb,
I saw some rippling in the clouds today, which looked suspect... I definitely noticed that they sprayed heavy yesterday for the first time in ages, followed by unnatural amounts of rain.
I felt odd around 2 ish today? like I was coming down with a cold, very off balance. Did you feel it? I knew something odd was happening, but part of me wondered if it was getting cold and wet that pissed my body off? now I know different.
ps I recommend that article, for those interested in this subject.
I saw some rippling in the clouds today, which looked suspect... I definitely noticed that they sprayed heavy yesterday for the first time in ages, followed by unnatural amounts of rain.
I felt odd around 2 ish today? like I was coming down with a cold, very off balance. Did you feel it? I knew something odd was happening, but part of me wondered if it was getting cold and wet that pissed my body off? now I know different.
ps I recommend that article, for those interested in this subject.
lot of haarp ripples round here and as u say shit loads spray yesterday
I shall read the article
I shall read the article
~The Royal Society's Report: 'Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty' - an excellent broad introduction to the area of geoengineering
~Kiel University's Climate Engineering News Round-up - provides an up-to-date summary of proceedings in the field of geoengineering
"Engineering the climate?" - a short animated film aimed at a younger audience (via EuTRACE)
~NERC's Study: 'Public dialogue on geoengineering'
~The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison project (GeoMIP)
~The Oxford Martin School's Geoengineering Programme
~The Royal Society's Report: 'Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI)'
~U.S. Government Accountability Office's Report: 'Climate Change: A coordinated strategy could focus federal geoengineering research and inform governance efforts'
http://www.iagp.ac.uk/geoengineering1
~Kiel University's Climate Engineering News Round-up - provides an up-to-date summary of proceedings in the field of geoengineering
"Engineering the climate?" - a short animated film aimed at a younger audience (via EuTRACE)
~NERC's Study: 'Public dialogue on geoengineering'
~The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison project (GeoMIP)
~The Oxford Martin School's Geoengineering Programme
~The Royal Society's Report: 'Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI)'
~U.S. Government Accountability Office's Report: 'Climate Change: A coordinated strategy could focus federal geoengineering research and inform governance efforts'
http://www.iagp.ac.uk/geoengineering1
harold
Member
What an insanely dangerous way of heating water. I was listening to a podcast by Michael tellinger, and he mentioned sound frequencies can be used to boil water, with very little input.
the military have emp pulse weapons but are wise enough not to use them (maybe?), as a strong pulse could knock out the devices controlling the nuclear stations.
First Global Maps from Orbiting Carbon Observatory
Global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from Oct. 1 through Nov. 11, as recorded by NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. Carbon dioxide concentrations are highest above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
A global map covering Oct. 1 through Nov. 17 shows elevated carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil.
Dec. 19, 2014: The first global maps of atmospheric carbon dioxide from NASA's new Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 mission show elevated carbon dioxide concentrations across the Southern Hemisphere from springtime biomass burning and hint at potential surprises to come.
At a media briefing at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, scientists from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California; Colorado State University (CSU), Fort Collins; and the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, presented the maps of carbon dioxide and a related phenomenon known as solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence and discussed their potential implications.
"Preliminary analysis shows these signals are largely driven by the seasonal burning of savannas and forests," said OCO-2 Deputy Project Scientist Annmarie Eldering, of JPL. The team is comparing these measurements with data from other satellites to clarify how much of the observed concentration is likely due to biomass burning.
The time period covered by the new maps is spring in the Southern Hemisphere, when agricultural fires and land clearing are widespread. The impact of these activities on global carbon dioxide has not been well quantified. As OCO-2 acquires more data, Eldering said, its Southern Hemisphere measurements could lead to an improved understanding of the relative importance in these regions of photosynthesis in tropical plants, which removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and biomass burning, which releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The early OCO-2 data hint at some potential surprises to come. "The agreement between OCO-2 and models based on existing carbon dioxide data is remarkably good, but there are some interesting differences," said Christopher O'Dell, an assistant professor at CSU and member of OCO-2's science team. "Some of the differences may be due to systematic errors in our measurements, and we are currently in the process of nailing these down. But some of the differences are likely due to gaps in our current knowledge of carbon sources in certain regions -- gaps that OCO-2 will help fill in."
This map shows solar-induced fluorescence, a plant process that occurs during photosynthesis, from Aug. through Oct. 2014 as measured by NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. This period is springtime in the Southern Hemisphere and fall in the Northern Hemisphere. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no distinguishing features to show what its source was. Elevated carbon dioxide over a region could have a natural cause -- for example, a drought that reduces plant growth -- or a human cause. At today's briefing, JPL scientist Christian Frankenberg introduced a map using a new type of data analysis from OCO-2 that can help scientists distinguish the gas's natural sources.
Through photosynthesis, plants remove carbon dioxide from the air and use sunlight to synthesize the carbon into food. Plants end up re-emitting about one percent of the sunlight at longer wavelengths. Using one of OCO-2's three spectrometer instruments, scientists can measure the re-emitted light, known as solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF). This measurement complements OCO-2's carbon dioxide data with information on when and where plants are drawing carbon from the atmosphere.
Auroras Underfoot (signup)"Where OCO-2 really excels is the sheer amount of data being collected within a day, about one million measurements across a narrow swath," Frankenberg said. "For fluorescence, this enables us, for the first time, to look at features on the five- to 10-kilometer scale on a daily basis." SIF can be measured even through moderately thick clouds, so it will be especially useful in understanding regions like the Amazon where cloud cover thwarts most spaceborne observations.
The changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide that OCO-2 seeks to measure are so small that the mission must take unusual precautions to ensure the instrument is free of errors. For that reason, the spacecraft was designed so that it can make an extra maneuver. In addition to gathering a straight line of data like a lawnmower swath, the instrument can point at a single target on the ground for a total of seven minutes as it passes overhead. That requires the spacecraft to turn sideways and make a half cartwheel to keep the target in its sights.
The targets OCO-2 uses are stations in the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON), a collaborative effort of multiple international institutions. TCCON has been collecting carbon dioxide data for about five years, and its measurements are fully calibrated and extremely accurate. At the same time that OCO-2 targets a TCCON site, a ground-based instrument at the site makes the same measurement. The extent to which the two measurements agree indicates how well calibrated the OCO-2 sensors are.
Additional maps released today showed the results of these targeting maneuvers over two TCCON sites in California and one in Australia. "Early results are very promising," said Paul Wennberg, a professor at Caltech and head of the TCCON network. "Over the next few months, the team will refine the OCO-2 data, and we anticipate that these comparisons will continue to improve."
Global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from Oct. 1 through Nov. 11, as recorded by NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. Carbon dioxide concentrations are highest above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
A global map covering Oct. 1 through Nov. 17 shows elevated carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere above northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil.
Dec. 19, 2014: The first global maps of atmospheric carbon dioxide from NASA's new Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 mission show elevated carbon dioxide concentrations across the Southern Hemisphere from springtime biomass burning and hint at potential surprises to come.
At a media briefing at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, scientists from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California; Colorado State University (CSU), Fort Collins; and the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, presented the maps of carbon dioxide and a related phenomenon known as solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence and discussed their potential implications.
"Preliminary analysis shows these signals are largely driven by the seasonal burning of savannas and forests," said OCO-2 Deputy Project Scientist Annmarie Eldering, of JPL. The team is comparing these measurements with data from other satellites to clarify how much of the observed concentration is likely due to biomass burning.
The time period covered by the new maps is spring in the Southern Hemisphere, when agricultural fires and land clearing are widespread. The impact of these activities on global carbon dioxide has not been well quantified. As OCO-2 acquires more data, Eldering said, its Southern Hemisphere measurements could lead to an improved understanding of the relative importance in these regions of photosynthesis in tropical plants, which removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and biomass burning, which releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The early OCO-2 data hint at some potential surprises to come. "The agreement between OCO-2 and models based on existing carbon dioxide data is remarkably good, but there are some interesting differences," said Christopher O'Dell, an assistant professor at CSU and member of OCO-2's science team. "Some of the differences may be due to systematic errors in our measurements, and we are currently in the process of nailing these down. But some of the differences are likely due to gaps in our current knowledge of carbon sources in certain regions -- gaps that OCO-2 will help fill in."
This map shows solar-induced fluorescence, a plant process that occurs during photosynthesis, from Aug. through Oct. 2014 as measured by NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2. This period is springtime in the Southern Hemisphere and fall in the Northern Hemisphere. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no distinguishing features to show what its source was. Elevated carbon dioxide over a region could have a natural cause -- for example, a drought that reduces plant growth -- or a human cause. At today's briefing, JPL scientist Christian Frankenberg introduced a map using a new type of data analysis from OCO-2 that can help scientists distinguish the gas's natural sources.
Through photosynthesis, plants remove carbon dioxide from the air and use sunlight to synthesize the carbon into food. Plants end up re-emitting about one percent of the sunlight at longer wavelengths. Using one of OCO-2's three spectrometer instruments, scientists can measure the re-emitted light, known as solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF). This measurement complements OCO-2's carbon dioxide data with information on when and where plants are drawing carbon from the atmosphere.
Auroras Underfoot (signup)"Where OCO-2 really excels is the sheer amount of data being collected within a day, about one million measurements across a narrow swath," Frankenberg said. "For fluorescence, this enables us, for the first time, to look at features on the five- to 10-kilometer scale on a daily basis." SIF can be measured even through moderately thick clouds, so it will be especially useful in understanding regions like the Amazon where cloud cover thwarts most spaceborne observations.
The changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide that OCO-2 seeks to measure are so small that the mission must take unusual precautions to ensure the instrument is free of errors. For that reason, the spacecraft was designed so that it can make an extra maneuver. In addition to gathering a straight line of data like a lawnmower swath, the instrument can point at a single target on the ground for a total of seven minutes as it passes overhead. That requires the spacecraft to turn sideways and make a half cartwheel to keep the target in its sights.
The targets OCO-2 uses are stations in the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON), a collaborative effort of multiple international institutions. TCCON has been collecting carbon dioxide data for about five years, and its measurements are fully calibrated and extremely accurate. At the same time that OCO-2 targets a TCCON site, a ground-based instrument at the site makes the same measurement. The extent to which the two measurements agree indicates how well calibrated the OCO-2 sensors are.
Additional maps released today showed the results of these targeting maneuvers over two TCCON sites in California and one in Australia. "Early results are very promising," said Paul Wennberg, a professor at Caltech and head of the TCCON network. "Over the next few months, the team will refine the OCO-2 data, and we anticipate that these comparisons will continue to improve."
https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025
NASA warfare strategy document....
http://stopthecrime.net/nasa doc flyer.jpg
cannot copy text. pdf file
NASA warfare strategy document....
http://stopthecrime.net/nasa doc flyer.jpg
cannot copy text. pdf file
Nature can, selectively, buffer human-caused global warming, say Israeli, US scientists
02 February 2014 Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jerusalem, February 2, 2014 – Can naturally occurring processes selectively buffer the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities?
Yes, find researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Johns Hopkins University in the US and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
As the globe warms, ocean temperatures rise, leading to increased water vapor escaping into the atmosphere. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, and its impact on climate is amplified in the stratosphere.
In a detailed study, the researchers from the three institutions examined the causes of changes in the temperatures and water vapor in the tropical tropopause layer (TTL). The TTL is a critical region of our atmosphere with characteristics of both the troposphere below and the stratosphere above.
The TTL can have significant influences on both atmospheric chemistry and climate, as its temperature determines how much water vapor can enter the stratosphere. Therefore, understanding any changes in the temperature of the TTL and what might be causing them is an important scientific question of significant societal relevance, say the researchers.
The Israeli and US scientists used measurements from satellite observations and output from chemistry-climate models to understand recent temperature trends in the TTL. Temperature measurements show where significant changes have taken place since 1979.
The satellite observations have shown that warming of the tropical Indian Ocean and tropical Western Pacific Ocean – with resulting increased precipitation and water vapor there -- causes the opposite effect of cooling in the TTL region above the warming sea surface. Once the TTL cools, less water vapor is present in the TTL and also above in the stratosphere,
Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say.
The researchers are Dr. Chaim Garfinkel of the Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University and formerly of Johns Hopkins University, Dr. D. W. Waugh and Dr. L. Wang of Johns Hopkins, and Dr. L. D. Oman and Dr. M. M. Hurwitz of the Goddard Space Flight Center. Their findings have been published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, and the research was also highlighted in Nature Climate Change.
http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=138594&CultureCode=en
02 February 2014 Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jerusalem, February 2, 2014 – Can naturally occurring processes selectively buffer the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities?
Yes, find researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Johns Hopkins University in the US and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
As the globe warms, ocean temperatures rise, leading to increased water vapor escaping into the atmosphere. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, and its impact on climate is amplified in the stratosphere.
In a detailed study, the researchers from the three institutions examined the causes of changes in the temperatures and water vapor in the tropical tropopause layer (TTL). The TTL is a critical region of our atmosphere with characteristics of both the troposphere below and the stratosphere above.
The TTL can have significant influences on both atmospheric chemistry and climate, as its temperature determines how much water vapor can enter the stratosphere. Therefore, understanding any changes in the temperature of the TTL and what might be causing them is an important scientific question of significant societal relevance, say the researchers.
The Israeli and US scientists used measurements from satellite observations and output from chemistry-climate models to understand recent temperature trends in the TTL. Temperature measurements show where significant changes have taken place since 1979.
The satellite observations have shown that warming of the tropical Indian Ocean and tropical Western Pacific Ocean – with resulting increased precipitation and water vapor there -- causes the opposite effect of cooling in the TTL region above the warming sea surface. Once the TTL cools, less water vapor is present in the TTL and also above in the stratosphere,
Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say.
The researchers are Dr. Chaim Garfinkel of the Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University and formerly of Johns Hopkins University, Dr. D. W. Waugh and Dr. L. Wang of Johns Hopkins, and Dr. L. D. Oman and Dr. M. M. Hurwitz of the Goddard Space Flight Center. Their findings have been published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, and the research was also highlighted in Nature Climate Change.
http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=138594&CultureCode=en
Global Temperature Report: December 2014
2014 was third warmest, but barely
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
December temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit)
above 30- year average for December.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.46 C (about 0.83 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.18 C (about 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
Tropics: +0.30 C (about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
November temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.33 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.35 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.30 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.25 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released Jan. 3, 2015:
2014 was the third warmest year in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, but by such a small margin (0.01 C) as to be statistically similar to other recent years, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
“2014 was warm, but not special. The 0.01 C difference between 2014 and 2005, or the 0.02 difference with 2013 are not statistically different from zero. That might not be a very satisfying conclusion, but it is at least accurate.”
The 2014 average temperature anomaly is also in keeping with temperatures since late 2001, when the global average temperature rose to a level that is generally warmer than the 30-year baseline average. The most recent 13 complete calendar years, from 2002 through 2014, have averaged 0.18 C (about 0.33 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30-year baseline average, while the global temperature trend during that span was a warming trend at the rate of +0.05 C per decade — which is also statistically insignificant.
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest annual average temperature on Earth throughout 2014 was just south of Wilmar, Minnesota. The average 2014 temperature there was –1.27 C (about 2.29 degrees F) colder than normal. The ‘warmest’ place throughout 2014 was just south of the North Pole along the International Date Line. Temperatures there averaged 1.65 C (about 2.97 degrees F) warmer than normal for the year.
Annual Global Temperature Anomalies, ranked
1. 1998 0.42
2. 2010 0.40
3. 2014 0.27
4. 2005 0.26
5. 2013 0.24
6. 2002 0.22
7. 2009 0.21
8. 2007 0.20
9. 2003 0.19
10. 2006 0.19
11. 2012 0.17
12. 2011 0.13
13. 2004 0.11
14. 2001 0.11
15. 1991 0.02
16. 1987 0.01
17. 1995 0.01
18. 1988 0.01
19. 1980 -0.01
20. 2008 -0.01
21. 1990 -0.02
22. 1981 -0.05
23. 1997 -0.05
24. 1999 -0.06
25. 1983 -0.06
26. 2000 -0.06
27. 1996 -0.08
28. 1994 -0.11
29. 1979 -0.17
30. 1989 -0.21
31. 1986 -0.24
32. 1993 -0.25
33. 1982 -0.25
34. 1992 -0.29
35. 1985 -0.31
36. 1984 -0.35
With a global average temperature that was 0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, December 2014 trailed only December 2003, which averaged 0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, among the warmest Decembers in the satellite temperature record. While December 2014 ranked second warmest for both the globe and the Northern Hemisphere, it was only the sixth warmest December in the tropics despite an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event that seems to be forming there.
Warmest Decembers (1979-2014) (Global average, warmer than seasonal norms)
1. 2003 +0.37 C
2. 2014 +0.32 C
3. 1987 +0.27 C
4. 2013 +0.27 C
5. 2009 +0.24 C
6. 2012 +0.23 C
7. 1997 +0.22 C
8. 2006 +0.22 C
9. 1998 +0.19 C
10. 2005 +0.19 C
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth's atmosphere in December was in northwestern Greenland, where temperatures were as much as 2.70 C (about 4.86 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than seasonal norms.
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest departure from average in December was in central Russia, north of the town of Yeniseysk. Temperatures there were as much as 2.75 C (about 4.86 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms
.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a "public" computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/december2014/dec2014GTR.pdf
2014 was third warmest, but barely
Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade
December temperatures (preliminary)
Global composite temp.: +0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit)
above 30- year average for December.
Northern Hemisphere: +0.46 C (about 0.83 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
Southern Hemisphere: +0.18 C (about 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
Tropics: +0.30 C (about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for December.
November temperatures (revised):
Global Composite: +0.33 C above 30-year average
Northern Hemisphere: +0.35 C above 30-year average
Southern Hemisphere: +0.30 C above 30-year average
Tropics: +0.25 C above 30-year average
(All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)
Notes on data released Jan. 3, 2015:
2014 was the third warmest year in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, but by such a small margin (0.01 C) as to be statistically similar to other recent years, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
“2014 was warm, but not special. The 0.01 C difference between 2014 and 2005, or the 0.02 difference with 2013 are not statistically different from zero. That might not be a very satisfying conclusion, but it is at least accurate.”
The 2014 average temperature anomaly is also in keeping with temperatures since late 2001, when the global average temperature rose to a level that is generally warmer than the 30-year baseline average. The most recent 13 complete calendar years, from 2002 through 2014, have averaged 0.18 C (about 0.33 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30-year baseline average, while the global temperature trend during that span was a warming trend at the rate of +0.05 C per decade — which is also statistically insignificant.
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest annual average temperature on Earth throughout 2014 was just south of Wilmar, Minnesota. The average 2014 temperature there was –1.27 C (about 2.29 degrees F) colder than normal. The ‘warmest’ place throughout 2014 was just south of the North Pole along the International Date Line. Temperatures there averaged 1.65 C (about 2.97 degrees F) warmer than normal for the year.
Annual Global Temperature Anomalies, ranked
1. 1998 0.42
2. 2010 0.40
3. 2014 0.27
4. 2005 0.26
5. 2013 0.24
6. 2002 0.22
7. 2009 0.21
8. 2007 0.20
9. 2003 0.19
10. 2006 0.19
11. 2012 0.17
12. 2011 0.13
13. 2004 0.11
14. 2001 0.11
15. 1991 0.02
16. 1987 0.01
17. 1995 0.01
18. 1988 0.01
19. 1980 -0.01
20. 2008 -0.01
21. 1990 -0.02
22. 1981 -0.05
23. 1997 -0.05
24. 1999 -0.06
25. 1983 -0.06
26. 2000 -0.06
27. 1996 -0.08
28. 1994 -0.11
29. 1979 -0.17
30. 1989 -0.21
31. 1986 -0.24
32. 1993 -0.25
33. 1982 -0.25
34. 1992 -0.29
35. 1985 -0.31
36. 1984 -0.35
With a global average temperature that was 0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, December 2014 trailed only December 2003, which averaged 0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, among the warmest Decembers in the satellite temperature record. While December 2014 ranked second warmest for both the globe and the Northern Hemisphere, it was only the sixth warmest December in the tropics despite an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event that seems to be forming there.
Warmest Decembers (1979-2014) (Global average, warmer than seasonal norms)
1. 2003 +0.37 C
2. 2014 +0.32 C
3. 1987 +0.27 C
4. 2013 +0.27 C
5. 2009 +0.24 C
6. 2012 +0.23 C
7. 1997 +0.22 C
8. 2006 +0.22 C
9. 1998 +0.19 C
10. 2005 +0.19 C
Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth's atmosphere in December was in northwestern Greenland, where temperatures were as much as 2.70 C (about 4.86 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than seasonal norms.
Compared to seasonal norms, the warmest departure from average in December was in central Russia, north of the town of Yeniseysk. Temperatures there were as much as 2.75 C (about 4.86 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms
.
Archived color maps of local temperature anomalies are available on-line at:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a "public" computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/december2014/dec2014GTR.pdf
Thanks Trich
I can't believe i read all that, I enjoy the challenge of trying to understand that kind of stuff, climatologists have logic at least.
Oh well, now I know the truth! da da dah..... 2014 was slightly warmer than the 30year average, phew! now it can take my hat off.
I can't believe i read all that, I enjoy the challenge of trying to understand that kind of stuff, climatologists have logic at least.
Oh well, now I know the truth! da da dah..... 2014 was slightly warmer than the 30year average, phew! now it can take my hat off.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/maps.php?submitted=true&year=2014&month=12&imgs[]=nationaltavgrank&imgs[]=nationaltmaxrank&imgs[]=nationaltminrank&imgs[]=nationalpcpnrank&imgs[]=regionaltavgrank&imgs[]=regionaltmaxrank&imgs[]=regionaltminrank&imgs[]=regionalpcpnrank&imgs[]=statewidetavgrank&imgs[]=statewidetmaxrank&imgs[]=statewidetminrank&imgs[]=statewidepcpnrank&imgs[]=divisionaltavgrank&imgs[]=divisionaltmaxrank&imgs[]=divisionaltminrank&imgs[]=divisionalpcpnrank&ts=ytd#maps
temps 2014
temps 2014
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.
In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.
The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.
Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’
Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.
‘Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year… the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little.’
Scientists disagree over its significance, but there is little doubt that the rapid warming of the 1980s and early 1990s has slowed – although greenhouse gas emissions have surged.
Bob Ward, of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change, said the new figures showed the notion that global warming had ‘stopped’ was a ‘myth’, although it had ‘temporarily slowed’. Since 1951, he added, the long-term trend was for warming of 0.12C per decade, and in his view, it would ‘pick up again unabated’ if emissions continued to rise.
However, if the long-term rate is 0.12C per decade, this would mean the world would be 1C or so warmer by the end of the century, not 4C-5C as some have claimed.
Climate sceptics insisted that the new figures showed the warming ‘pause’ had continued. Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said ‘there has been no statistically significant warming trend since 1997’ – because the entire increase over this period was smaller than the error margin.
Dr Ed Hawkins, associate professor of climate science at the University of Reading, said the past 15 years had seen a slightly slower rate of warming.
But he added: ‘You have to take a longer view, because 15 years is too short a period. We expect natural fluctuations, volcanic eruptions and changes in solar output to sometimes slow and sometimes increase warming rates.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PNyv75ET
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.
The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.
As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.
Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’
Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.
‘Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year… the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little.’
Scientists disagree over its significance, but there is little doubt that the rapid warming of the 1980s and early 1990s has slowed – although greenhouse gas emissions have surged.
Bob Ward, of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change, said the new figures showed the notion that global warming had ‘stopped’ was a ‘myth’, although it had ‘temporarily slowed’. Since 1951, he added, the long-term trend was for warming of 0.12C per decade, and in his view, it would ‘pick up again unabated’ if emissions continued to rise.
However, if the long-term rate is 0.12C per decade, this would mean the world would be 1C or so warmer by the end of the century, not 4C-5C as some have claimed.
Climate sceptics insisted that the new figures showed the warming ‘pause’ had continued. Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said ‘there has been no statistically significant warming trend since 1997’ – because the entire increase over this period was smaller than the error margin.
Dr Ed Hawkins, associate professor of climate science at the University of Reading, said the past 15 years had seen a slightly slower rate of warming.
But he added: ‘You have to take a longer view, because 15 years is too short a period. We expect natural fluctuations, volcanic eruptions and changes in solar output to sometimes slow and sometimes increase warming rates.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PNyv75ET
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Scientists alarmed at short-term ozone-eroding gases
Environmental scientists raise concern at rising levels of gases that attack Earth's protective ozone layer, including manmade chemicals not covered by a key UN treaty © Provided by AFP Environmental scientists raise concern at rising levels of gases that attack Earth's protective ozone layer, including manmade chemicals not covered by a key UN treaty
Environmental scientists raised concern Monday at rising levels of gases that attack Earth's protective ozone layer, including manmade chemicals not covered by a key UN treaty.
Researchers at Leeds University in northern England said two computer models highlighted the impact of so-called "very short-lived substances" -- VSLS -- that deplete the stratospheric shield.
The damage they do to the ozone layer is significant and likely to increase, they said, as emissions of man-made chlorine gases rise.
Ironically, one of the chemicals named in the report, dichloromethane, is used in the manufacture of substitutes for ozone-depleting gases outlawed by the UN's 1987 Montreal Protocol.
VSLS are gases that have a short lifetime, usually breaking down in less than six months.
They are not covered by the landmark Montreal Protocol that requires the phaseout of longer-lasting chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) and halon gases.
"Our model simulations indicate that VSLS account for a significant portion of ozone loss in the stratosphere," lead investigator Ryan Hossaini told AFP by email.
"In the Antarctic region, where the ozone hole forms each year and where ozone decreases are the most dramatic, we estimate that VSLS account for about 12.5 percent of the total ozone loss.
"Globally averaged, the ozone loss due to VSLS in the lower stratosphere could be as much as 25 percent, though it is much smaller at higher altitude."
Around 90 percent of VSLS are natural -- they are bromine compounds produced by seaweed and the ocean's phytoplankton.
The rest is man-made chlorine gases, and their contribution to the VSLS total is rising fast.
"Dichloromethane appears to be one of the most abundant man-made VSLS that we know of," said Hossaini.
Compared with the notorious CFCs, dichloromethane's impact today is small. The computer models suggest it reduces the ozone layer by less than one percent, he said.
"However, our study also shows that the atmospheric concentration of dichloromethane has increased dramatically in recent years," said Hossaini.
"At some locations its atmospheric concentration has doubled since the late 1990s."
The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, looked at two decades of raw data provided by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Ozone is a three-atom molecule of oxygen. At ground level, as a byproduct of traffic pollution, it can be a dangerous respiratory irritant.
- Ozone defence -
Los Angeles on a smoggy afternoon on November 02, 2006 © Provided by AFP Los Angeles on a smoggy afternoon on November 02, 2006
But in the stratosphere, a layer that lies between 10 and 50 kilometres (six to 52 miles) in altitude, it is a life-saver: it filters out harmful ultraviolet light that can cause skin cancer and cataracts and damage crops.
The ozone "hole" -- in reality, a thinning -- occurs naturally because of extreme cold.
But it is also eroded by man-made chlorine compounds such as coolants in air conditioners and refrigerators, insulation foams and propellants in hair sprays.
Most of these are being phased out under the Montreal treaty, which has been ratified by all 197 UN members.
Last September, UN agencies said the ozone was "well on track" for recovery by mid-century, although fixing it over Antarctica would take longer.
Some of the progress, though, would be offset if VSLS continue to increase, the paper said.
It was unclear whether global warming would hasten VSLS emissions by unlocking ocean sources, Hossaini said.
The gases were, however, not contributors to the greenhouse gas effect, which is separate from the ozone hole as an environmental problem.
Instead, VSLS exert an indirect cooling impact through the ozone loss.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...-at-short-term-ozone-eroding-gases/ar-BBhDZEY
Environmental scientists raise concern at rising levels of gases that attack Earth's protective ozone layer, including manmade chemicals not covered by a key UN treaty © Provided by AFP Environmental scientists raise concern at rising levels of gases that attack Earth's protective ozone layer, including manmade chemicals not covered by a key UN treaty
Environmental scientists raised concern Monday at rising levels of gases that attack Earth's protective ozone layer, including manmade chemicals not covered by a key UN treaty.
Researchers at Leeds University in northern England said two computer models highlighted the impact of so-called "very short-lived substances" -- VSLS -- that deplete the stratospheric shield.
The damage they do to the ozone layer is significant and likely to increase, they said, as emissions of man-made chlorine gases rise.
Ironically, one of the chemicals named in the report, dichloromethane, is used in the manufacture of substitutes for ozone-depleting gases outlawed by the UN's 1987 Montreal Protocol.
VSLS are gases that have a short lifetime, usually breaking down in less than six months.
They are not covered by the landmark Montreal Protocol that requires the phaseout of longer-lasting chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) and halon gases.
"Our model simulations indicate that VSLS account for a significant portion of ozone loss in the stratosphere," lead investigator Ryan Hossaini told AFP by email.
"In the Antarctic region, where the ozone hole forms each year and where ozone decreases are the most dramatic, we estimate that VSLS account for about 12.5 percent of the total ozone loss.
"Globally averaged, the ozone loss due to VSLS in the lower stratosphere could be as much as 25 percent, though it is much smaller at higher altitude."
Around 90 percent of VSLS are natural -- they are bromine compounds produced by seaweed and the ocean's phytoplankton.
The rest is man-made chlorine gases, and their contribution to the VSLS total is rising fast.
"Dichloromethane appears to be one of the most abundant man-made VSLS that we know of," said Hossaini.
Compared with the notorious CFCs, dichloromethane's impact today is small. The computer models suggest it reduces the ozone layer by less than one percent, he said.
"However, our study also shows that the atmospheric concentration of dichloromethane has increased dramatically in recent years," said Hossaini.
"At some locations its atmospheric concentration has doubled since the late 1990s."
The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, looked at two decades of raw data provided by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Ozone is a three-atom molecule of oxygen. At ground level, as a byproduct of traffic pollution, it can be a dangerous respiratory irritant.
- Ozone defence -
Los Angeles on a smoggy afternoon on November 02, 2006 © Provided by AFP Los Angeles on a smoggy afternoon on November 02, 2006
But in the stratosphere, a layer that lies between 10 and 50 kilometres (six to 52 miles) in altitude, it is a life-saver: it filters out harmful ultraviolet light that can cause skin cancer and cataracts and damage crops.
The ozone "hole" -- in reality, a thinning -- occurs naturally because of extreme cold.
But it is also eroded by man-made chlorine compounds such as coolants in air conditioners and refrigerators, insulation foams and propellants in hair sprays.
Most of these are being phased out under the Montreal treaty, which has been ratified by all 197 UN members.
Last September, UN agencies said the ozone was "well on track" for recovery by mid-century, although fixing it over Antarctica would take longer.
Some of the progress, though, would be offset if VSLS continue to increase, the paper said.
It was unclear whether global warming would hasten VSLS emissions by unlocking ocean sources, Hossaini said.
The gases were, however, not contributors to the greenhouse gas effect, which is separate from the ozone hole as an environmental problem.
Instead, VSLS exert an indirect cooling impact through the ozone loss.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...-at-short-term-ozone-eroding-gases/ar-BBhDZEY
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/early/2015/02/10/pp.114.253229
Abstract
Despite the rhizotoxicity of aluminum (Al) being identified over 100 years ago, there is still no consensus regarding the mechanisms whereby root elongation rate is initially reduced in the ca. 40 % of arable soils worldwide that are acidic. We used high resolution kinematic analyses, molecular biology, rheology, and advanced imaging techniques to examine soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) roots exposed to Al. Using this multidisciplinary approach, we have conclusively shown that the primary lesion of Al is apoplastic. In particular, it was found that 75 µM Al reduced root growth after only 5 min (or 30 min at 30 µM Al), with Al being toxic by binding to the walls of outer cells which directly inhibited their loosening in the elongation zone. An alteration in the biosynthesis and distribution of ethylene and auxin was a second, slower effect, causing both a transient decrease in the rate of cell elongation after 1.5 h but also a longer-term gradual reduction in the length of the elongation zone. These findings demonstrate the importance of focusing on traits related to cell wall composition as well as mechanisms involved in wall loosening in order to overcome the deleterious effects of soluble Al.
Abstract
Despite the rhizotoxicity of aluminum (Al) being identified over 100 years ago, there is still no consensus regarding the mechanisms whereby root elongation rate is initially reduced in the ca. 40 % of arable soils worldwide that are acidic. We used high resolution kinematic analyses, molecular biology, rheology, and advanced imaging techniques to examine soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) roots exposed to Al. Using this multidisciplinary approach, we have conclusively shown that the primary lesion of Al is apoplastic. In particular, it was found that 75 µM Al reduced root growth after only 5 min (or 30 min at 30 µM Al), with Al being toxic by binding to the walls of outer cells which directly inhibited their loosening in the elongation zone. An alteration in the biosynthesis and distribution of ethylene and auxin was a second, slower effect, causing both a transient decrease in the rate of cell elongation after 1.5 h but also a longer-term gradual reduction in the length of the elongation zone. These findings demonstrate the importance of focusing on traits related to cell wall composition as well as mechanisms involved in wall loosening in order to overcome the deleterious effects of soluble Al.
Geoengineering Is Not a Solution to Climate Change
Using technofixes to tinker with global climate systems is an excuse to avoid unpopular but necessary measures to reduce carbon emissions
March 10, 2015 |By Clive Hamilton
Can we control the climate system? And we can control ourselves?
Credit: BenGoode/Thinkstock
SA Forum is an invited essay from experts on topical issues in science and technology.
The geoengineering juggernaut has shifted into higher gear with the release of a long-awaited report from the National Research Council recommending federal funding for research into “plan B” technologies to intervene in the climate system to counter the effects of warming.
Reports commissioned by the council are often the trigger for large-scale research programs into new areas of science. Although providing a comprehensive review of the science behind various schemes, the new report is at its weakest when it grapples with the politics of geoengineering. Adopting the line that more research is always a good thing, council scientists do not concede experiments that do not change the physical environment can sharply change the social and political environment.
And so the report treats as only of theoretical concern the possibility that a major research program on climate modification would reduce political incentives to reduce carbon emissions. Anyone who has watched world leaders seize on carbon capture and storage as a means of having our cake and eating it can see what is likely. The world lost 10 years chasing the chimera of “clean coal.”
Questions of control are at the center of the geoengineering debate, especially with respect to the proposal that receives most attention—shielding Earth with an atmospheric layer of sulfate particles to reflect some of the sun’s heat. Renamed “albedo modification” in the council report, it raises many questions. Among them: Can we control the climate system? Can we control ourselves?
After all, in full knowledge of the consequences we have failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—not so much because we do not buy green electricity or switch to public transport but because we cannot stop ourselves voting for politicians whom we know will do little or nothing.
Technofixes—technical solutions to social problems—are appealing when we are unwilling to change ourselves and our social institutions. So here is the essential problem that the council scientists do not confront: Does anyone really believe that while warming is suppressed with a sulfate aerosol shield a revolution will occur in our attitudes and political systems?
No. Yet every scientist, including the council authors, is convinced that if albedo modification is implemented and not followed by a program of global emission reductions, then we are almost certainly finished. Sulfate spraying without a change in the political system would make the situation worse.
There is a long history of technological interventions entrenching the behaviors that created the problem. In Navigating Environmental Attitudes Thomas Heberlein tells the story of the New Deal dams of the 1920s and 1930s built to limit severe damage from floods and droughts. Yet flood losses after the dams were built increased. People looked at the now “safe” flood plains and built more houses on them. They were sitting ducks when the rivers once again flooded. The course of a river is easier to shift than people’s attitudes.
The council argues that the U.S. should have a better research base on albedo modification to inform its response should some other actor decide unilaterally to begin spraying sulfates into the stratosphere. Perhaps, although that would be a situation of international diplomacy, and quite possibly military maneuvering, rather than one of “my model run is better than yours.”
The risk of the National Research Council report is that its warnings about the environmental risks and uncertainties will be overlooked by political players looking for an answer but unwilling to embrace the need it stressed—to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Already, politicians loathe to implement serious measures to cut emissions are privately attracted to the geoengineering technofix, including albedo modification, as a substitute.
For the moment the political taboo on speaking of it publicly is holding. (Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen broke the scientific taboo with a famous essay in 2006.) But by normalizing geoengineering as one response among a “portfolio” of actions, the council report, backed by the prestige of the National Academy of Sciences, may loosen the prohibition’s grip.
A fleet of planes daily delivering sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere would be a grim monument to the ultimate failure of unbridled techno-industrialism and our unwillingness to change the way we live.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geoengineering-is-not-a-solution-to-climate-change/
Using technofixes to tinker with global climate systems is an excuse to avoid unpopular but necessary measures to reduce carbon emissions
March 10, 2015 |By Clive Hamilton
Can we control the climate system? And we can control ourselves?
Credit: BenGoode/Thinkstock
SA Forum is an invited essay from experts on topical issues in science and technology.
The geoengineering juggernaut has shifted into higher gear with the release of a long-awaited report from the National Research Council recommending federal funding for research into “plan B” technologies to intervene in the climate system to counter the effects of warming.
Reports commissioned by the council are often the trigger for large-scale research programs into new areas of science. Although providing a comprehensive review of the science behind various schemes, the new report is at its weakest when it grapples with the politics of geoengineering. Adopting the line that more research is always a good thing, council scientists do not concede experiments that do not change the physical environment can sharply change the social and political environment.
And so the report treats as only of theoretical concern the possibility that a major research program on climate modification would reduce political incentives to reduce carbon emissions. Anyone who has watched world leaders seize on carbon capture and storage as a means of having our cake and eating it can see what is likely. The world lost 10 years chasing the chimera of “clean coal.”
Questions of control are at the center of the geoengineering debate, especially with respect to the proposal that receives most attention—shielding Earth with an atmospheric layer of sulfate particles to reflect some of the sun’s heat. Renamed “albedo modification” in the council report, it raises many questions. Among them: Can we control the climate system? Can we control ourselves?
After all, in full knowledge of the consequences we have failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—not so much because we do not buy green electricity or switch to public transport but because we cannot stop ourselves voting for politicians whom we know will do little or nothing.
Technofixes—technical solutions to social problems—are appealing when we are unwilling to change ourselves and our social institutions. So here is the essential problem that the council scientists do not confront: Does anyone really believe that while warming is suppressed with a sulfate aerosol shield a revolution will occur in our attitudes and political systems?
No. Yet every scientist, including the council authors, is convinced that if albedo modification is implemented and not followed by a program of global emission reductions, then we are almost certainly finished. Sulfate spraying without a change in the political system would make the situation worse.
There is a long history of technological interventions entrenching the behaviors that created the problem. In Navigating Environmental Attitudes Thomas Heberlein tells the story of the New Deal dams of the 1920s and 1930s built to limit severe damage from floods and droughts. Yet flood losses after the dams were built increased. People looked at the now “safe” flood plains and built more houses on them. They were sitting ducks when the rivers once again flooded. The course of a river is easier to shift than people’s attitudes.
The council argues that the U.S. should have a better research base on albedo modification to inform its response should some other actor decide unilaterally to begin spraying sulfates into the stratosphere. Perhaps, although that would be a situation of international diplomacy, and quite possibly military maneuvering, rather than one of “my model run is better than yours.”
The risk of the National Research Council report is that its warnings about the environmental risks and uncertainties will be overlooked by political players looking for an answer but unwilling to embrace the need it stressed—to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Already, politicians loathe to implement serious measures to cut emissions are privately attracted to the geoengineering technofix, including albedo modification, as a substitute.
For the moment the political taboo on speaking of it publicly is holding. (Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen broke the scientific taboo with a famous essay in 2006.) But by normalizing geoengineering as one response among a “portfolio” of actions, the council report, backed by the prestige of the National Academy of Sciences, may loosen the prohibition’s grip.
A fleet of planes daily delivering sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere would be a grim monument to the ultimate failure of unbridled techno-industrialism and our unwillingness to change the way we live.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geoengineering-is-not-a-solution-to-climate-change/
Climate Intervention Is Not a Replacement for Reducing Carbon Emissions;
Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment
WASHINGTON – There is no substitute for dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the negative consequences of climate change, a National Research Council committee concluded in a two-volume evaluation of proposed climate-intervention techniques. Strategies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are limited by cost and technological immaturity, but they could contribute to a broader portfolio of climate change responses with further research and development. Albedo-modification technologies, which aim to increase the ability of Earth or clouds to reflect incoming sunlight, pose considerable risks and should not be deployed at this time.
Carbon dioxide removal and albedo-modification techniques have been grouped up until now under the common term “geoengineering,” but they vary widely with respect to environmental risks, socio-economic impacts, cost, and research needs. Carbon dioxide removal addresses the root cause of climate change -- high concentrations of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere -- and generally have well-understood benefits and risks, but current technologies would take decades to achieve moderate results and be cost-prohibitive at scales large enough to have a sizeable impact. By contrast, albedo-modification techniques would only temporarily mask the warming effect caused by high CO2 concentrations, and present serious known and possible unknown environmental, social, and political risks, including the possibility of being deployed unilaterally.
These differences led the committee to evaluate the two types of approaches separately in companion reports, a distinction it hopes carries over to future scientific and policy discussions. In addition, the committee believes that these approaches are more accurately described as “climate intervention” strategies -- purposeful actions intended to curb the negative impacts of climate change -- rather than engineering strategies that imply precise control over the climate.
“That scientists are even considering technological interventions should be a wake-up call that we need to do more now to reduce emissions, which is the most effective, least risky way to combat climate change,” said committee chair Marcia McNutt, editor-in-chief of Science and former director of the U.S. Geological Survey. “But the longer we wait, the more likely it will become that we will need to deploy some forms of carbon dioxide removal to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”
If society ultimately decides to intervene in Earth’s climate, any actions should be informed by a far more substantive body of scientific research, including ethical and social dimensions, than is presently available, the committee said. Decisions regarding deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies will be largely based on cost and scalability, and research is needed to make current options more effective, more environmentally friendly, and less costly. Conversely, any future decision about albedo modification will be judged primarily on questions of risk, and there are many opportunities to conduct research that furthers basic understanding of the climate system and its human dimensions -- without imposing the risks of large-scale deployment -- that would better inform societal considerations.
“If the world cannot slow emissions or the effects of climate change are more extreme or occur sooner than expected, there may be demands to pursue additional climate-intervention technologies about which scientists need a better understanding,” said National Academy of Sciences President Ralph J. Cicerone. “Although riskier ideas to lessen the amount of energy absorbed from the sun should not be considered for deployment, they should be studied so that we can provide answers if someday these ideas begin to be considered in attempts to avert catastrophe. These reports should guide federal agencies in supporting research on climate-intervention technologies, while keeping separate any decision-making about their implementation.”
Carbon dioxide removal and sequestration
Some carbon dioxide removal strategies seek to enhance or mimic the natural processes that already remove about half of the world’s carbon emissions from the atmosphere each year. Environmental risks vary among the proposed technologies (listed below), but overall the risks are relatively low and generally understood. However, most carbon dioxide removal strategies have limited technical capacity, and absent some unforeseen technological innovation, large-scale deployment would cost as much or more than replacing fossil fuels with low carbon-emission energy sources, the committee said.
· Land-management approaches such as forest restoration and low-till agriculture are mature, readily deployable technologies with well-known environmental consequences.
· Enhanced weathering processes on land and in the ocean to accelerate natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere have only been carried out on a limited scale with intermediate technological readiness. Ocean-based approaches in particular carry significant environmental and socio-political risks.
· Ocean iron fertilization is an immature technology whose high costs and technical and environmental risks currently outweigh the benefits.
· Approaches in which biomass is converted to heat, electricity, or liquid or gas fuels followed by CO2 capture and sequestration are limited by the availability of land for biomass cultivation and the need to transport it to processing facilities.
· Direct air capture of carbon is an immature technology with only laboratory experiments carried out to date and demonstration projects in progress. Technologies for storing the captured carbon are at an intermediate stage, but only prototypes exist and are not at the scale required for significant sequestration.
The committee recommended federal research and development investment to improve methods of carbon dioxide removal and disposal at scales that would have a significant global climate impact. In particular, research is needed to minimize energy and materials consumption, identify and quantify risks, lower costs, and develop reliable sequestration and monitoring capabilities.
Albedo-modification research
Technologies that prevent sunlight from reaching Earth’s surface could reduce average global temperatures within a few years, similar to the effects of large volcanic eruptions. While many albedo-modification techniques have been proposed, the committee said two strategies that could potentially have a significant impact are injection of aerosols into the stratosphere and marine cloud brightening. Unlike carbon dioxide removal, these methods would not require major technological innovation to be implemented and are relatively inexpensive compared with the costs of transitioning to a carbon-free economy.
However, albedo modification would only temporarily mask the warming effect of greenhouse gases and would not address atmospheric concentrations of CO2 or related impacts such as ocean acidification. In the absence of CO2 reductions, albedo-modification activities would need to be sustained indefinitely and at increasingly large scales to offset warming, with severe negative consequences if they were to be terminated. In addition, albedo modification introduces secondary effects on the ozone layer, precipitation patterns, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and human health, with unknown social, political, and economic outcomes.
Many of the processes most relevant to albedo modification -- such as those that control the formation of clouds and aerosols -- are among the most difficult components of the climate system to model and monitor. Present-day observational capabilities lack sufficient capacity to monitor the environmental effects of an albedo-modification deployment. Improvements in the capacity to monitor direct and indirect changes on weather, climate, or larger Earth systems and to detect unilateral or uncoordinated deployment could help further understanding of albedo modification and climate science generally.
The committee said it would be “irrational and irresponsible” to implement sustained albedo modification without also pursuing emissions mitigation, carbon dioxide removal, or both. It opposed deployment of albedo-modification techniques, but recommended further research, particularly “multiple-benefit” research that simultaneously advances basic understanding of the climate system and quantifies the technologies’ potential costs, intended and unintended consequences, and risks.
Albedo-modification research will have legal, ethical, social, political, and economic ramifications. The committee recommended the initiation of a serious deliberative process to examine what international research governance structures may be needed beyond those that already exist, and what types of research would require such governance. The degree and nature of governance should vary by activity and the associated risks, and should involve civil society in decision-making through a transparent and open process.
The study was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. intelligence community, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Department of Energy. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council are private, independent nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter granted to NAS in 1863. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org. A committee roster follows.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=02102015
Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment
WASHINGTON – There is no substitute for dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the negative consequences of climate change, a National Research Council committee concluded in a two-volume evaluation of proposed climate-intervention techniques. Strategies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are limited by cost and technological immaturity, but they could contribute to a broader portfolio of climate change responses with further research and development. Albedo-modification technologies, which aim to increase the ability of Earth or clouds to reflect incoming sunlight, pose considerable risks and should not be deployed at this time.
Carbon dioxide removal and albedo-modification techniques have been grouped up until now under the common term “geoengineering,” but they vary widely with respect to environmental risks, socio-economic impacts, cost, and research needs. Carbon dioxide removal addresses the root cause of climate change -- high concentrations of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere -- and generally have well-understood benefits and risks, but current technologies would take decades to achieve moderate results and be cost-prohibitive at scales large enough to have a sizeable impact. By contrast, albedo-modification techniques would only temporarily mask the warming effect caused by high CO2 concentrations, and present serious known and possible unknown environmental, social, and political risks, including the possibility of being deployed unilaterally.
These differences led the committee to evaluate the two types of approaches separately in companion reports, a distinction it hopes carries over to future scientific and policy discussions. In addition, the committee believes that these approaches are more accurately described as “climate intervention” strategies -- purposeful actions intended to curb the negative impacts of climate change -- rather than engineering strategies that imply precise control over the climate.
“That scientists are even considering technological interventions should be a wake-up call that we need to do more now to reduce emissions, which is the most effective, least risky way to combat climate change,” said committee chair Marcia McNutt, editor-in-chief of Science and former director of the U.S. Geological Survey. “But the longer we wait, the more likely it will become that we will need to deploy some forms of carbon dioxide removal to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”
If society ultimately decides to intervene in Earth’s climate, any actions should be informed by a far more substantive body of scientific research, including ethical and social dimensions, than is presently available, the committee said. Decisions regarding deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies will be largely based on cost and scalability, and research is needed to make current options more effective, more environmentally friendly, and less costly. Conversely, any future decision about albedo modification will be judged primarily on questions of risk, and there are many opportunities to conduct research that furthers basic understanding of the climate system and its human dimensions -- without imposing the risks of large-scale deployment -- that would better inform societal considerations.
“If the world cannot slow emissions or the effects of climate change are more extreme or occur sooner than expected, there may be demands to pursue additional climate-intervention technologies about which scientists need a better understanding,” said National Academy of Sciences President Ralph J. Cicerone. “Although riskier ideas to lessen the amount of energy absorbed from the sun should not be considered for deployment, they should be studied so that we can provide answers if someday these ideas begin to be considered in attempts to avert catastrophe. These reports should guide federal agencies in supporting research on climate-intervention technologies, while keeping separate any decision-making about their implementation.”
Carbon dioxide removal and sequestration
Some carbon dioxide removal strategies seek to enhance or mimic the natural processes that already remove about half of the world’s carbon emissions from the atmosphere each year. Environmental risks vary among the proposed technologies (listed below), but overall the risks are relatively low and generally understood. However, most carbon dioxide removal strategies have limited technical capacity, and absent some unforeseen technological innovation, large-scale deployment would cost as much or more than replacing fossil fuels with low carbon-emission energy sources, the committee said.
· Land-management approaches such as forest restoration and low-till agriculture are mature, readily deployable technologies with well-known environmental consequences.
· Enhanced weathering processes on land and in the ocean to accelerate natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere have only been carried out on a limited scale with intermediate technological readiness. Ocean-based approaches in particular carry significant environmental and socio-political risks.
· Ocean iron fertilization is an immature technology whose high costs and technical and environmental risks currently outweigh the benefits.
· Approaches in which biomass is converted to heat, electricity, or liquid or gas fuels followed by CO2 capture and sequestration are limited by the availability of land for biomass cultivation and the need to transport it to processing facilities.
· Direct air capture of carbon is an immature technology with only laboratory experiments carried out to date and demonstration projects in progress. Technologies for storing the captured carbon are at an intermediate stage, but only prototypes exist and are not at the scale required for significant sequestration.
The committee recommended federal research and development investment to improve methods of carbon dioxide removal and disposal at scales that would have a significant global climate impact. In particular, research is needed to minimize energy and materials consumption, identify and quantify risks, lower costs, and develop reliable sequestration and monitoring capabilities.
Albedo-modification research
Technologies that prevent sunlight from reaching Earth’s surface could reduce average global temperatures within a few years, similar to the effects of large volcanic eruptions. While many albedo-modification techniques have been proposed, the committee said two strategies that could potentially have a significant impact are injection of aerosols into the stratosphere and marine cloud brightening. Unlike carbon dioxide removal, these methods would not require major technological innovation to be implemented and are relatively inexpensive compared with the costs of transitioning to a carbon-free economy.
However, albedo modification would only temporarily mask the warming effect of greenhouse gases and would not address atmospheric concentrations of CO2 or related impacts such as ocean acidification. In the absence of CO2 reductions, albedo-modification activities would need to be sustained indefinitely and at increasingly large scales to offset warming, with severe negative consequences if they were to be terminated. In addition, albedo modification introduces secondary effects on the ozone layer, precipitation patterns, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and human health, with unknown social, political, and economic outcomes.
Many of the processes most relevant to albedo modification -- such as those that control the formation of clouds and aerosols -- are among the most difficult components of the climate system to model and monitor. Present-day observational capabilities lack sufficient capacity to monitor the environmental effects of an albedo-modification deployment. Improvements in the capacity to monitor direct and indirect changes on weather, climate, or larger Earth systems and to detect unilateral or uncoordinated deployment could help further understanding of albedo modification and climate science generally.
The committee said it would be “irrational and irresponsible” to implement sustained albedo modification without also pursuing emissions mitigation, carbon dioxide removal, or both. It opposed deployment of albedo-modification techniques, but recommended further research, particularly “multiple-benefit” research that simultaneously advances basic understanding of the climate system and quantifies the technologies’ potential costs, intended and unintended consequences, and risks.
Albedo-modification research will have legal, ethical, social, political, and economic ramifications. The committee recommended the initiation of a serious deliberative process to examine what international research governance structures may be needed beyond those that already exist, and what types of research would require such governance. The degree and nature of governance should vary by activity and the associated risks, and should involve civil society in decision-making through a transparent and open process.
The study was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. intelligence community, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Department of Energy. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council are private, independent nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter granted to NAS in 1863. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org. A committee roster follows.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=02102015
Latest posts
-
-
-
Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter over “Rust” death- Latest: Captain Red Eye
-
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter over “Rust” death
- Latest: Captain Red Eye
-
-
