According the the Daily Tech
"ExxonMobil's CEO defended oil and gas
drilling by saying that climate
change is something humans can adapt to.
Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil
CEO, said issues like climate change, energy dependence and oil/gas drilling are
blown out of proportion. He blames a lazy press, illiterate public and
fear-mongering advocacy groups for the bad light placed on the oil
industry.
Climate change is a controversial topic that has been subjected
to much debate. Tillerson said that fossil fuels may cause global warming, but
argued that humans can easily adapt to the warmer climate. More specifically, he
said that humans can adapt to rising sea levels and climate changes because he
doubts the validity of climate modeling, which predicts the magnitude of impact
associated with climate change.
"We have spent our entire existence
adapting," said Tillerson. "We'll adapt. It's an engineering problem and there
will be an engineering solution."
Others, however, disagree with
Tillerson's assessment. Andrew Weaver, chairman of climate modeling and analysis
at Canada's University of Victoria, said that adapting to climate change would
be much harder than just preventing it in the first place.
In addition, adapting to climate change could be much more expensive than
preventing it. According to Steve Coll, author of "Private Empire: ExxonMobil
and American Power," adapting to climate change would require moving entire
cities. A better alternative would be legislation that slows the process of
global warming."
A comment on the article helpfully suggested "I think this guy has the right idea. We need jobs, we have plenty of
construction workers, plenty of land, and a rising sea level threatening coastal
areas. So lets start expanding inland areas, get business's to move off the
coast and take their employees with them. They'd probably save money in the long
run with the lower cost of living and real estate inland."
I wonder if you could develop some technology that would just lift entire cities and drop them safely inland, eg move New york to the Great Plains?
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Early Hurricane Season 2012
According to the Harrisburg Examiner: "Two named storms before the June 1 official start to hurricane season. It’s the first time since 1908 that such an occurrence has happened in the Atlantic. Then add Tropical Storm Chris which formed yesterday in the Northern Atlantic and wasn’t forecast to strengthen past tropical storm status but unexpectedly became the first hurricane of the 2012 season this afternoon. According to the National Hurricane Center it’s only the third time that three storms have formed before June 19. The other two occasions were the 1887 and 1959 hurricane seasons. With such an active start, should the U.S. be preparing for a potentially deadly and active hurricane season?
The official National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) seasonal hurricane outlook which was released May 24, stated that “NOAA’s outlook predicts a less active season compared to recent years”. To support their prediction, they cited high wind sheer and cooler sea surface temperatures which inhibit tropical cyclone formation.
According to Foxnews: "A strong storm system across the eastern United States caused five fatalities and wiped out power to more than 2 million people. There were four reported deaths in Virginia, including a 90-year-old woman asleep in bed when a tree slammed into her home, a police spokeswoman said Saturday. Another man was killed by a falling tree while watching the storm from his deck and a woman died after she, too, was hit by a falling tree after she got out of her car to observe a downed tree. Both those deaths occurred in Albermarle County, Va. A fallen tree also killed a man driving in Maryland."
The Examiner piece goes on: "Looking at the past years mentioned by the National Hurricane Center when referencing how early the three storms have already formed, the seasons of 1887, 1908 and 1959 have been mentioned. Those seasons looked like this.
The official National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) seasonal hurricane outlook which was released May 24, stated that “NOAA’s outlook predicts a less active season compared to recent years”. To support their prediction, they cited high wind sheer and cooler sea surface temperatures which inhibit tropical cyclone formation.
According to Foxnews: "A strong storm system across the eastern United States caused five fatalities and wiped out power to more than 2 million people. There were four reported deaths in Virginia, including a 90-year-old woman asleep in bed when a tree slammed into her home, a police spokeswoman said Saturday. Another man was killed by a falling tree while watching the storm from his deck and a woman died after she, too, was hit by a falling tree after she got out of her car to observe a downed tree. Both those deaths occurred in Albermarle County, Va. A fallen tree also killed a man driving in Maryland."
The Examiner piece goes on: "Looking at the past years mentioned by the National Hurricane Center when referencing how early the three storms have already formed, the seasons of 1887, 1908 and 1959 have been mentioned. Those seasons looked like this.
- 1887 was the third most active season on record (tied for third with 2010 and 2011) with 19 named storms and 10 hurricanes.
- 1908 had 10 names storms and six hurricanes and it’s interesting to note that the east coast of the United States was affected by four of the 10 storms.
- 1959 had 11 named storms and seven hurricanes and two of the 11 storms affected the United States east coast."
Sunday, June 24, 2012
The Vanishing North
The Economist magazine ran an editorial and special report in last weeks magazing on the disappearing ice in the Arctic. According to the piece:
"As our special report shows in detail, the Arctic is warming roughly twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Since the 1950s the lower atmosphere has warmed by a global average of 0.7 degrees Celsius; Greenland’s air has warmed by 1.5 degrees. The main reason appears to be a catalytic warming effect, triggered by global warming. When snow or ice melt, they are replaced by darker melt-water pools, land or sea. As a result, the Arctic surface absorbs more solar heat. This causes local warming, therefore more melting, which causes more warming, and so on. This positive feedback shows how even a small change to the Earth’s systems can trigger much greater ones."
A short video illustrates the point. The piece goes on to point out that the disappearance of the ice opens up major oil and gas extraction opportunities, apparently oblivious to the irony of this proposition. It does finally correctly identify the key to solving the problem. which is to price CO2:
"The worry that needs to be taken most seriously is climate change itself. The impact of the melting Arctic may have a calamitous effect on the planet. It is likely to disrupt oceanic circulation—the mixing of warm tropical and cold polar waters, of which the Gulf Stream is a part—and thawing permafrost will lead to the emission of masses of carbon dioxide and methane, and thus further warming. It is also raising sea levels. The Greenland ice sheet has recently shed around 200 gigatonnes of ice a year, a fourfold increase on a decade ago. If the warming continues, it could eventually disintegrate, raising the sea level by seven metres. Many of the world’s biggest cities would be inundated long before that happened. Some scientists argue that the perils are so immediate that mankind should consider geoengineering the atmosphere to avert them..... They may turn out to be right, but there could be enormous risks involved. A slower but safer approach would be to price greenhouse-gas emissions, preferably through a carbon tax, which would encourage the adoption of cleaner technologies..... That shift would be costly, but the costs of inaction are likely to be larger."
But bizzarely finishes with the complacent view that the loss of the arctic woudl be a pity!
"In the end, the world is likely to get a grip on global warming. The survival instinct demands it. But it is likely to lose a lot of the unique Arctic first. That would be a terrible pity."
"As our special report shows in detail, the Arctic is warming roughly twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Since the 1950s the lower atmosphere has warmed by a global average of 0.7 degrees Celsius; Greenland’s air has warmed by 1.5 degrees. The main reason appears to be a catalytic warming effect, triggered by global warming. When snow or ice melt, they are replaced by darker melt-water pools, land or sea. As a result, the Arctic surface absorbs more solar heat. This causes local warming, therefore more melting, which causes more warming, and so on. This positive feedback shows how even a small change to the Earth’s systems can trigger much greater ones."
A short video illustrates the point. The piece goes on to point out that the disappearance of the ice opens up major oil and gas extraction opportunities, apparently oblivious to the irony of this proposition. It does finally correctly identify the key to solving the problem. which is to price CO2:
"The worry that needs to be taken most seriously is climate change itself. The impact of the melting Arctic may have a calamitous effect on the planet. It is likely to disrupt oceanic circulation—the mixing of warm tropical and cold polar waters, of which the Gulf Stream is a part—and thawing permafrost will lead to the emission of masses of carbon dioxide and methane, and thus further warming. It is also raising sea levels. The Greenland ice sheet has recently shed around 200 gigatonnes of ice a year, a fourfold increase on a decade ago. If the warming continues, it could eventually disintegrate, raising the sea level by seven metres. Many of the world’s biggest cities would be inundated long before that happened. Some scientists argue that the perils are so immediate that mankind should consider geoengineering the atmosphere to avert them..... They may turn out to be right, but there could be enormous risks involved. A slower but safer approach would be to price greenhouse-gas emissions, preferably through a carbon tax, which would encourage the adoption of cleaner technologies..... That shift would be costly, but the costs of inaction are likely to be larger."
But bizzarely finishes with the complacent view that the loss of the arctic woudl be a pity!
"In the end, the world is likely to get a grip on global warming. The survival instinct demands it. But it is likely to lose a lot of the unique Arctic first. That would be a terrible pity."
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Beryl's Last Stand
The 2012 Atlantic hurricane season officially began on June
1, 2012 and will officially end on November 30, 2012, dates which
conventionally delimit the period when most tropical cyclones develop in the
Atlantic basin. However, this season
began early when Tropical Storm Alberto and Tropical Storm Beryl both developed
several days before the official start of the season, the first such occurrence
since the 1908 Atlantic hurricane season. We are getting the end of Tropical
Storm Beryl in Ireland at the moment (as I look out the window sheeting rain
and flooded fields) – according to met eireann Meteorologist Gerald Fleming the
forecast was for "a month's rain in two days". Munster and Connacht
are expected be the worst affected with up to 60mm of rainfall expected.
Scientific American reports in an article about extreme
flooding events: “"Big rain events and higher overnight lows are two
things we would expect with [a] warming world," says Deke Arndt, chief of
the National Climatic Data Center’s Climate Monitoring Branch. Arndt's group
had already documented a stunning rise in overnight low temperatures across the
U.S. So are the floods and spate of other recent extreme events also examples
of predictions turned into cold, hard reality? Increasingly, the answer is yes.
Scientists used to say, cautiously, that extreme weather events were
"consistent" with the predictions of climate change. No more.
"Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have
happened the same way without global warming," says Kevin Trenberth, head
of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in
Boulder, Colo. That's a profound change—the difference between predicting
something and actually seeing it happen. The reason is simple: The signal of
climate change is emerging from the "noise"—the huge amount of
natural variability in weather.”
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Greenland's glaciers are moving 30 percent faster - rediscovered photos
According to Nature: "Aerial photographs of Greenland from the 1930s — rediscovered in a castle outside Copenhagen — could provide a deeper understanding of the impact of climate change on the island's glaciers than the use of satellite data alone. Most studies of Greenland's glaciers have used satellite imagery collected since the 1960s. Anders Bjørk at the University of Copenhagen and his colleagues found the historical images of 132 Greenlandic glaciers and compared them with more recent satellite data. The comparison shows that, overall, glacier retreat over the past decade has been as vigorous as in a similar period of warming in the 1930s. However, glaciers with edges that reach the ocean tended to retreat more rapidly in the 2000s than in the 1930s, whereas those terminating on land regressed faster 80 years ago than in the 2000s."
According to Benjamin Smith, a University of Washington researcher reported in yahoo news, "The ice losses of the last decade or so largely has wiped out the gains of the midcentury cool period. The current loss of ocean-terminating glaciers is a problem because it is the major contributor to sea level rise, according. Although recent melting has outpaced the 1930s melting, the patterns of melt are similar, Smith says. "This indicates that the retreat in the 2000s was a typical response of the ice sheet to warmer air and ocean temperatures, and that future warming events can be expected to have similar consequences," he wrote.
Recent images reveal that Greenland's glaciers are moving 30 percent faster than they were a decade ago.
According to Benjamin Smith, a University of Washington researcher reported in yahoo news, "The ice losses of the last decade or so largely has wiped out the gains of the midcentury cool period. The current loss of ocean-terminating glaciers is a problem because it is the major contributor to sea level rise, according. Although recent melting has outpaced the 1930s melting, the patterns of melt are similar, Smith says. "This indicates that the retreat in the 2000s was a typical response of the ice sheet to warmer air and ocean temperatures, and that future warming events can be expected to have similar consequences," he wrote.
Climate Change May Cut Your Summertime Electricity
According to Scientific American, fossil fuel burning power plants aren't only causing climate change, they're likely to suffer from such global warming due to the fact that water, used for cooling fossil fuel plants, is running short, or its temperature is too high to be an effective coolant - which is ironic - according to the piece: "That problem is only going to get worse, according to an analysis in the journal Nature Climate Change. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) By the 2040s, available electricity could be down by 16 percent in the summertime. When you’d most like electricity. To run your air conditioner. To beat the heat. Told you it was ironic."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)