April 1, 2009

According to a report from the Pacific Institute, California may lose up to 31 square miles of coastal property by 2100. The report says that a 1.4 meter sea level rise could impact 480,000 people and cost CA over $100 billion by 2100.
George Monbiot notes that because politicians depend on the extremely conservative IPCC reports, their plans for mitigation are always behind the curve. He cites the recent Copenhagen meeting that makes it clear that sea level rise will be two to three times the IPCC estimate. Andy Revkin discusses the results of that meeting, which was aimed at updating the last IPCC report. Webcasts of the conference and its summary proposals are available here. And, to make matters even worse, a recent study says that if the thermohaline circulation slows, as predicted, the northeast US coast can expect sea level to rise 8 inches more than other coastal zones this century, adding to the 1 meter of sea level rise already being commonly discussed these days. To get an idea of what a 1.5 or 3.0 meter rise in sea level would be like, check out the links we have to flood maps or see the interactive sea level rise map recently published by Peter Black at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Meanwhile, the British Meteorological Office warns of 5 degrees C temperature rise by 2100 if emissions keep rising and the chief science advisor for the British government warns that the world faces a perfect storm of troubles by 2030 if BAU and PAU persist. Nevertheless, global warming continues to rank low among environmental concerns for Americans according to a recent Gallup pole. Skeptics are most numerous among Republicans and people over 30 years old. The NYT Magazine has an informative article about Professor Freeman Dyson, one of the most credentialed global warming skeptics.
Speaking of climate change skeptics, here is Pat Mooney's rebuttal, published in The Washington Post, to the scandalous George Will column denying global warming.
Elizabeth Kolbert, author of Field Notes to a Catastrophe, a fine short book about climate change, discusses the responsibility of the media and scientists to better inform the public about global warming in an article at Yale Environment 360.
Climate scientists, of course, continue to be very concerned. A poll of 82 climate scientists reveals that they feel there is a 50% probability that, without action to reduce GHG emissions, there will be massive climate changes with devastating consequences for human civilization in the next two hundred years. Not the least of their worries is the possibility of catastrophic releases of methane from the Arctic Tundra. Nature Reports Climate Change calls this possibility a "ticking time bomb." Thomas Friedman spells out some of the perils and some of the possible solutions to the climate crisis in this post from March 29, 2009.
One of the predicted results of increasing acidity of the ocean will be that it will be more difficult for sea creatures to incorporate carbon into their shells. Now a report shows that plankton shells formed during the industrial era are thinner than shells from prior times
The maximum extent of winter ice cover in the Great Lakes has decreased by about 30% since the early 1970's.
Scientific American reports, with alarm, that a third of US birds are endangered, threatened, or in decline.
The US government will conduct meetings on climate and energy policy with 16 nations, including China and India, in April and July.
A new study points to the importance of airborne African dust in increases and decreases in the temperature of the tropical Northern Atlantic Ocean.
Solar power can make real gains if financial incentives are applied. First by making it worth people's while (i.e., paying them) and second by providing tax credits and municipal financing.
It looks like things will be heating up in the Arctic in more ways than one. Russia plans restrictions on travel through its Arctic waters.
In Oregon, opposition builds against developing a cap-and-trade program for GHG emissions.
The Natural Resources Defense Council has a very informative webpage regarding coal waste from existing and proposed coal-fired electric power plants. South Carolina plants are doing their share. The NRDC also has an excellent fact sheet on the down side of generating electric power from coal.
Carlin Rosengarten, a KTCSG member, contributed this post about the EPA holding up permits for coal mining by mountaintop removal.
On a straight party line vote Colorado lawmakers have passed revised rules for oil and gas drilling that gives more protection for the environment and for wildlife.
Jim Hansen suggests that it may be time to take to the streets about action on climate change.
Bill McKibben discusses "the fierce urgency of now" - the need for rapid development of non-polluting energy sources like wind power, even when it is in his backyard.
Did you know that making Portland cement contributes 5% of global GHG emissons? This informative article describes attempts to reduce cement's carbon footprint and even use it as a way to sequester CO2.
Representatives Waxman (CA) and Markey (MA) have introduced an ambitious global warming bill in the House of Representatives. They propose emissions reductions of 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels, with all emissions allowances to be auctioned off. However, Todd Stern, the chief US Climate Change Negotiator, had already said that the Obama administration was aiming at a 15% reduction by 2020.
Extreme Ice was a must see NOVA special that aired Tuesday, March 24. It has incredible pictures and videos and can be viewed online.