Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
2007 seen as second warmest year as climate shifts
Alister Doyle, Reuters
This year is on track to be the second warmest since records began in the 1860s and floods in Pakistan or a heatwave in Greece may herald worse disruptions in store from global warming, experts said on Friday.
“2007 is looking as though it will be the second warmest behind 1998,” said Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia, which provides data to the U.N.’s International Meteorological Organization.
…Almost all climate experts say that the trend is towards more droughts, floods, heatwaves and more powerful storms. But they say that individual extreme events are not normally a sign of global warming because weather is, by its nature, chaotic.
“Severe events are going to be more frequent,” said Salvano Briceno, director of the Geneva-based secretariat of the U.N. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
(29 June 2007)
Extreme weather wakes US up to climate change
Leonard Doyle, The Independent
US public opinion is rapidly waking up to the threat posed by global warming, despite the best efforts of the Bush Administration and much of industry to deny the problem.
There has been a double-digit increase in the proportion of Americans who say environmental problems are a major global threat – from 23 per cent to 37 per cent, according to a comprehensive survey published this week by the Pew Centre in Washington.
The environment is increasingly in the news in the US, thanks to violent and unusual weather patterns – mainly floods and severe drought – combined with the rising cost of petrol. The past few days have seen dramatic rainfall across the southern states. More than a foot of rain fell across central Texas and Oklahoma yesterday, with more storms predicted.
Hardly a day passes without a report being issued pointing to new environmental threats. A study released yesterday revealed how much damage Alaska, which is currently experiencing forest fires, would suffer from higher temperatures, melting permafrost, reduced polar ice and increased flooding.
…The Pew survey bears out the fact that concern about the environment is still sharply lower in the US than in any other advanced industrial country, with the exception of the UK. In every other Western European country large majorities view global warming as a serious problem, ranging from 57 per cent in Italy to 70 per cent in Spain.
The survey of some 10,000 people worldwide by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that public opinion in Great Britain mirrors the US view. In the UK, less than half (45 per cent) say it is very serious while another 37 per cent rate it as a somewhat serious concern.
The survey found that the Chinese are far more likely than Americans to cite environmental problems as a major global danger (70 per cent against 37 per cent).
Worldwide, most people in the surveyed countries agree that the environment is in trouble and most blame the US and, to a much more limited degree, China.
(29 June 2007)
A Saturated Gassy Argument
Spencer Weart and Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, RealClimate.org
The simple physics explanations for the greenhouse effect that you find on the internet are often quite wrong. These well-meaning errors can promote confusion about whether humanity is truly causing global warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Some people have been arguing that simple physics shows there is already so much CO2 in the air that its effect on infrared radiation is “saturated”- meaning that adding more gas can make scarcely any difference in how much radiation gets through the atmosphere, since all the radiation is already blocked. And besides, isn’t water vapor already blocking all the infrared rays that CO2 ever would?
The arguments do sound good, so good that in fact they helped to suppress research on the greenhouse effect for half a century.
…The breakthroughs that finally set the field back on the right track came from research during the 1940s. Military officers lavishly funded research on the high layers of the air where their bombers operated, layers traversed by the infrared radiation they might use to detect enemies. Theoretical analysis of absorption leaped forward, with results confirmed by laboratory studies using techniques orders of magnitude better than Ã…ngström could deploy. The resulting developments stimulated new and clearer thinking about atmospheric radiation.
…In sum, the way radiation is absorbed only matters if you want to calculate the exact degree of warming – adding carbon dioxide will make the greenhouse effect stronger regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere. But in fact, the Earth’s atmosphere is not even close to being in a state of saturation.
…So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the “saturation argument” against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.
Then you can heave a sigh, and wonder how much different the world would be today if these arguments were understood in the 1920’s, as they could well have been if anybody had thought it important enough to think through.
(27 June 2007)
Contributor Steven Lesh writes:
In the process of refuting the argument the atmosphere is already so saturated with greenhouse gases like water vapor and CO2, the author(s?)provide an explanation of greenhouse gas effects on global warming even us illiterate laypersons can understand.
Come on, gang, let’s save the world!
Julie Ferry, The Guardian
These should be the best of times to be an environmental campaigner. With the world finally waking up to the challenges of climate change, green groups can now get down to the business of helping to forge the practical solutions that will save the planet. But one group you would expect to be all ears doesn’t appear to be listening.
According to a recent survey by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), only half of 11- to 17-year-olds claim to be worried about climate change. The age group as a whole said they were less likely than adults to believe they are – or ever would be – affected by it, and only 12% said they were capable of making a positive impact by changing their own lifestyles.
…”Young people are an important group,” says Neil Verlander, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth. “We have been trying different ways to reach them. Johnny Borrell from Razorlight recorded a new song in a studio powered by 18 solar panels in support of our campaign, and we ran a successful advertising campaign in universities, showing condoms covering a coal-fired power station chimney, a car exhaust and an aeroplane engine.”
Such initiatives tread a thin line between appealing to young people and being seen as too “try-hard”. C-Change stands out because it is run by young people, says Kosmin. “We aren’t a group of middle-aged adults trying to think up what is cool to get the message across. We are using what we know to be cool among our peers and what will connect with and open up their minds.”
While the Defra research shows poor awareness of climate change among 11- to 17-year-olds, another survey of 54,000 university and college applicants aged between 17 and 21 found that 91% thought that in 25 years, the effects of climate change would be “hitting the world hard”. The Future Leaders’ survey, commissioned by sustainable development charity Forum for the Future and the higher-education clearing house UCAS, also found that two-thirds of respondents believed that global oil reserves will have run out within 25 years, and 76% think lifestyles will need to change radically if civilisation is to survive into the next century.
While these results suggest this older age group is open to change, when they were asked what actions they had actually taken to help the environment, the answers were less positive. Only 40% had specifically chosen locally produced food over imports, and just 17% had taken a holiday in the UK instead of overseas. And, in another survey by the Department for Transport, it was those aged 16 to 25 who said they were least likely to pay more for a greener car.
“Our survey is a sign that this group is, in fact, super-engaged on climate change but they may not be thinking about doing something about it for a few years,” says James Goodman of Forum for the Future.
(28 June 2007)
Maybe a better place to look than surveys would be in blogs, videos and activist groups – that’s where the future is. -BA
