Arctic summer sea ice has reached its lowest extent on record - nearly 25% less than the previous low set in 2005. At the end of each summer, the sea ice cover reaches its minimum extent and what is left is the perennial ice cover, which consists mainly of thick multi-year ice floes. The area of the perennial ice has been steadily decreasing since the satellite record began in 1979, at a rate of about 10% per decade. But the 2007 minimum, reached around September 14, is far below the previous record made in 2005 and is about 38% lower than the long-term average. Such a dramatic loss has implications for ecology, climate and industry as Arctic accessibility increases. - NASA
For more info go to http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_minimum.html

Arctic summer sea ice has reached its lowest extent on record - nearly 25% less than the previous low set in 2005. At the end of each summer, the sea ice cover reaches its minimum extent and what is left is the perennial ice cover, which consists mainly of thick multi-year ice floes. The area of the perennial ice has been steadily decreasing since the satellite record began in 1979, at a rate of about 10% per decade. But the 2007 minimum, reached around September 14, is far below the previous record made in 2005 and is about 38% lower than the long-term average. Such a dramatic loss has implications for ecology, climate and industry as Arctic accessibility increases. - NASA
Fore more info go to http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_minimum.html

Did anybody see this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19789250/wid/18298287/

http://liveearth.msn.com/

Gore talked to the U.S. senate committee here are the top ten points he made. From AGU

1. Immediately freeze carbon dioxide emissions and then begin a program to reduce them by at least 90% by 2050.
2. Replace the payroll tax for social security and medicare with a tax on pollution, particularly carbon dioxide.
3. Use a portion of the tax on pollution to help low-income individuals adapt as carbon emission are reduced.
4. Work towards de-facto compliance with the Kyoto protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and create a new, strong international treaty with a starting date of 2010 instead of 2012.
5. Enact a moratorium on the construction of any new coal-fired power plants that are not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration.
6. Create an “Electranet’ a smart grid in which power generation is widely distributed. Homeowners and small businesses could use solar and wind energy generators and sell that energy into the grid at a rate that is determined by the market.
7. Raise corporate average fuel economy standards for automobiles, and set energy standards for other industries.
8. Set a date for a ban on incandescent light bulbs.
9. Create a ‘connie mae’ a carbon-neutral mortgage association that would help homebuyers pay for energy reduction measures such as insulation and energy-efficient windows that can have high upfront expenses.
10. Have the Securities and Exchange Commission require the disclosure of carbon emissions incorporate reporting.


Court rules on U.S. Greenhouse gas regulation

The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants’ under the federal clean air act and that the U.S. government has the authority to regulate them. the court opinion is available at http:www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/0pdf/05-1120.pdf

There is a very interesting article on geoengineering in this week's Nature:



Climate change: Is this what it takes to save the world? pp132 - 136

Long marginalized as a dubious idea, altering the climate through 'geoengineering' has staged something of a comeback.

Oliver Morton reports.

10.1038/447132a

http://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/edy70SqFzl0HjB0BSef0EJ

BOULDER--Arctic sea ice is melting at a significantly faster rate than projected by even the most advanced computer models, a new study concludes. The research, by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), shows that the Arctic's ice cover is retreating more rapidly than estimated by any of the 18 computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its 2007 assessments.

The study, "Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster Than Forecast?" will appear tomorrow in the online edition of Geophysical Research Letters. It was led by Julienne Stroeve of the NSIDC and funded by the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR's principal sponsor, and by NASA.

"While the ice is disappearing faster than the computer models indicate, both observations and the models point in the same direction: the Arctic is losing ice at an increasingly rapid pace and the impact of greenhouse gases is growing," says NCAR scientist Marika Holland, one of the study?s co-authors.

The authors compared model simulations of past climate with observations by satellites and other instruments. They found that, on average, the models simulated a loss in September ice cover of 2.5 percent per decade from 1953 to 2006. The fastest rate of September retreat in any individual model was 5.4 percent per decade. (September marks the yearly minimum of sea ice in the Arctic.) But newly available data sets, blending early aircraft and ship reports with more recent satellite measurements that are considered more reliable than the earlier records, show that the September ice actually declined at a rate of about 7.8 percent per decade during the 1953-2006 period.

"This suggests that current model projections may in fact provide a conservative estimate of future Arctic change, and that the summer Arctic sea ice may disappear considerably earlier than IPCC projections," says Stroeve.

-----Thirty years ahead of schedule -----

The study indicates that, because of the disparity between the computer models and actual observations, the shrinking of summertime ice is about 30 years ahead of the climate model projections. As a result, the Arctic could be seasonally free of sea ice earlier than the IPCC- projected timeframe of any time from 2050 to well beyond 2100.

The authors speculate that the computer models may fail to capture the full impact of increased carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Whereas the models indicate that about half of the ice loss from 1979 to 2006 was due to increased greenhouse gases, and the other half due to natural variations in the climate system, the new study indicates that greenhouse gases may be playing a significantly greater role.

There are a number of factors that may lead to the low rates of simulated sea ice loss. Several models overestimate the thickness of the present-day sea ice and the models may also fail to fully capture changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation that transport heat to polar regions.

-----March ice-----

Although the loss of ice for March is far less dramatic than the September loss, the models underestimate it by a wide margin as well. The study concludes that the actual rate of sea ice loss in March, which averaged about 1.8 percent per decade in the 1953-2006 period, was three times larger than the mean from the computer models. March is typically the month when Arctic sea ice is at its most extensive.

The Arctic is especially sensitive to climate change partly because regions of sea ice, which reflect sunlight back into space and provide a cooling impact, are disappearing. In contrast, darker areas of open water, which are expanding, absorb sunlight and increase temperatures. This feedback loop has played a role in the increasingly rapid loss of ice in recent years, which accelerated to 9.1 percent per decade from 1979 to 2006 according to satellite observations.

Walt Meier, Ted Scambos, and Mark Serreze, all at NSIDC, also co-authored the study.

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research under primary sponsorship by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

-The End-

Since the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment has been released, I feel it is appropriate to discuss some of the interesting challenges that we as climate change scientists face in getting the science out to the public. I recently attended the National American Meteorological Society Meeting in San Antonio, Texas where I spoke to several television meteorologists, climate scientists and policy scientists. In the following months I will address some of the challenges facing climate scientists and scientists involved in policy. This month's article will focus on the broadcast meteorologists' concerns.

Many television meteorologists either avoided talking about climate change or did not feel completely comfortable speaking about climate change on air.

The reasons I found for their discomfort were:

1. Climate change is not their expertise.
2. Climate change is a complex topic that was not able to be covered in a quick story.
3. Meteorologists felt the pressure from the television network advertising to slant certain issues.
4. Television meteorologists felt they had to walk a thin line between politics and science.
5. It can be difficult to break down the science of climate change.
6. Broadcast meteorologists do not want to put their own opinion into the climate change issue.
7. Some of the public does not care about climate change.
8. Broadcast meteorologists felt the public cares about how climate change affects them locally, but not as much about what is happening in other places around the world.

Many of these challenges can be remedied by collaboration between broadcast meteorologists, climate scientists, and educators. As a climate scientist and educator I plan on working with our local broadcast meteorologists and helping them break down the climate science. All of you can help in this effort as well. Reaching out to the broadcast community and letting them know your expertise and that you are a resource for them can help bridge the gap between what scientists know and what the general public knows. Television meteorologists reach thousands of people every single day. We should combine our strengths to help teach our community.

Lis

Since the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment has been released, I feel it is appropriate to discuss some of the interesting challenges that we as climate change scientists face in getting the science out to the public. I recently attended the National American Meteorological Society Meeting in San Antonio, Texas where I spoke to several television meteorologists, climate scientists and policy scientists. In the following months I will address some of the challenges facing climate scientists and scientists involved in policy. This month's article will focus on the broadcast meteorologists' concerns.

Many television meteorologists either avoided talking about climate change or did not feel completely comfortable speaking about climate change on air.

The reasons I found for their discomfort were:

1. Climate change is not their expertise.
2. Climate change is a complex topic that was not able to be covered in a quick story.
3. Meteorologists felt the pressure from the television network advertising to slant certain issues.
4. Television meteorologists felt they had to walk a thin line between politics and science.
5. It can be difficult to break down the science of climate change.
6. Broadcast meteorologists do not want to put their own opinion into the climate change issue.
7. Some of the public does not care about climate change.
8. Broadcast meteorologists felt the public cares about how climate change affects them locally, but not as much about what is happening in other places around the world.

Many of these challenges can be remedied by collaboration between broadcast meteorologists, climate scientists, and educators. As a climate scientist and educator I plan on working with our local broadcast meteorologists and helping them break down the climate science. All of you can help in this effort as well. Reaching out to the broadcast community and letting them know your expertise and that you are a resource for them can help bridge the gap between what scientists know and what the general public knows. Television meteorologists reach thousands of people every single day. We should combine our strengths to help teach our community.

Lis

Since the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment has been released, I feel it is appropriate to discuss some of the interesting challenges that we as climate change scientists face in getting the science out to the public. I recently attended the National American Meteorological Society Meeting in San Antonio, Texas where I spoke to several television meteorologists, climate scientists and policy scientists. In the following months I will address some of the challenges facing climate scientists and scientists involved in policy. This month's article will focus on the broadcast meteorologists' concerns.

Many television meteorologists either avoided talking about climate change or did not feel completely comfortable speaking about climate change on air.

The reasons I found for their discomfort were:

1. Climate change is not their expertise.
2. Climate change is a complex topic that was not able to be covered in a quick story.
3. Meteorologists felt the pressure from the television network advertising to slant certain issues.
4. Television meteorologists felt they had to walk a thin line between politics and science.
5. It can be difficult to break down the science of climate change.
6. Broadcast meteorologists do not want to put their own opinion into the climate change issue.
7. Some of the public does not care about climate change.
8. Broadcast meteorologists felt the public cares about how climate change affects them locally, but not as much about what is happening in other places around the world.

Many of these challenges can be remedied by collaboration between broadcast meteorologists, climate scientists, and educators. As a climate scientist and educator I plan on working with our local broadcast meteorologists and helping them break down the climate science. All of you can help in this effort as well. Reaching out to the broadcast community and letting them know your expertise and that you are a resource for them can help bridge the gap between what scientists know and what the general public knows. Television meteorologists reach thousands of people every single day. We should combine our strengths to help teach our community.

Lis

After writing to you about broadcast meteorologists communicating climate change, I presented climate change information to a team of broadcast meteorologists. The meeting was successful and we will continue working together.

In preparing for this meeting, I found environmentally effective actions. The following recommendations are taken from the book, "The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices. Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists." written by Michael Brower and Warren Leon.

Priority Actions by American Consumers:

-Transportation
-Choose a place to live that reduces the need to drive.
-Think twice before purchasing another car.
-Choose a fuel efficient, low polluting car.
-Set concrete goals for reducing your travel.
-Whenever practical walk, bicycle or take public transportation

-Food
-Eat less meat.
-Buy certified organic produce.

-Household Operations
-Choose your home carefully.
-Reduce the environmental costs of heating and hot water.
-Install efficient lighting and appliances
-Choose an electricity supplier offering renewable energy.

-Government Strategies that support the environment:
-Make the marketplace work for the environment
-Set high standards.
-Invest in the environment.
-Make land use an environmental issue.

-Brower and Leon, 1999-

Act on these recommendations and you will be an environmental role model in your community.

Lis

A few months ago, I heard Al Gore speak about the challenge of communicating science to the American public. His message was that citizens of our country have largely moved from printed information towards electronic media. This raises a couple of concerns and future work for educators.

According to the American Cancer Society, watching television burns fewer calories than sitting. Our body passively sits and gets information while we sit on the couch. Gore spoke about how the passive way we now gain information prevents us from challenging ideas. If the public is not critically thinking when learning about the news, misinformation can easily be spread.

We need to teach our students to question what they hear. Scientists, when they do their research, are constantly questioning their hypotheses. When it is time to publish their ideas, their work is peer reviewed and challenged again. Even after publication, the challenges continue. The questioning and challenging is never ending.

Given the amount of information available to students on the web, students can be lost in a sea of inexact knowledge. These students need to be critical and choose their sources wisely. Having a database of great science information is a way to help these students and teachers too.

Since I believe sorting through the information is a first step, I have developed a website (www.WeatherOutreach.org) with credible links for students and teachers in earth science education. Feel free to pass this site on to friends and colleagues.

Lis

I am participating in the Utah Climate Change Stakeholder's committee meetings as a private citizen. This committee is charged with developing a strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in Utah. We will deliver this strategy to our governor. Last week, science experts were invited to this meeting to discuss the impacts of climate change on Utah.

Communicating climate change to policy makers is not simple. Scientists must explain a complex topic to a wide audience. The participants were from financial, environmental, energy and health companies. Each group had different questions about climate change and unique backgrounds on the subject.

I asked participants for their thoughts on the speakers' effectiveness in order to understand how well the material had been presented. I discovered two things: the scientists overwhelmed participants with data and showed too many undecipherable graphs. If the scientists who presented the material had become more familiar with the participants' backgrounds and questions, they could have targeted the main questions appropriately.

How certain is climate change in Utah? The decision makers at this conference wanted to know. They want to be certain before changing the status quo, but if no changes are made now, it might be too late to make a large positive impact on climate change. Next month, I will tackle the issue of describing scientific uncertainty in my column.

Lis

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is now out. You can access this site by going to: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

As meteorologists i feel it is our responsibilty to educate the public about the weather, climate and climate change. To get more information visit any of the sites on this website, and to learn ways that each individual person can reduce CO2 emissions, you must see "An Inconvenient Truth" or visit www.climatecrisis.org