July
2009

Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change

Examiner.com exclusive global warming debates--Stephen Schneider
By: Thomas Fuller, SF Environmental Policy Examiner

Update: Roger Pielke Sr., principal contributor to Climate Science, has commented both here and on his website regarding my classification of his web log as a 'skeptic' web log. I plead guilty to over-facile classification. Although Climate Science does regularly challenge the accepted wisdom of climate change activists, he is first and foremost a scientist who publishes regularly in peer-reviewed journals. As I have noted before here, one of the major themes pursued on Climate Science is that humans do influence the climate through deforestation, land-use policy and interruptions of the hydrologic cycle, and Pielke Sr. thinks that this may actually outweigh the effects of human emissions of CO2.

Mr. Pielke feels that being characterized as a skeptic is pejorative--and it is certainly used that way in many discussions. I guess I've developed a tough skin after being called much worse--to me it's the use of the term denier that sets me off. But it's essentially lazy writing, and I apologize. I actually have the highest respect for what I've seen of his work on his website and elsewhere.

I'll be pursuing this further--sadly, Mr. Pielke didn't provide an email address and the comments section of his blog are usually turned off. I will try and contact him but in the meantime, I apologize for any confusion.

The second participant in the Global Warming Debates here at Examiner.com is Professor Stephen Schneider, whose biography runs longer than many of my articles. Here’s an excerpt:

Stephen H. Schneider is the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor of Biology, and a Senior Fellow in the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. He served as an NCAR scientist from 1973-1996, where he co-founded the Climate Project. He focuses on climate change science, integrated assessment of ecological and economic impacts of human-induced climate change, and identifying viable climate policies and technological solutions. He has consulted for federal agencies and White House staff in seven administrations. Elected to the US National Academy of Sciences in 2002, Dr. Schneider received the American Association for the Advancement of Science/ Westinghouse Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology and a MacArthur Fellowship for integrating and interpreting the results of global climate research. He is actively engaged in improving public understanding of science and the environment through extensive media communication and public outreach.

Conducting an interview by email can be dangerous—especially when a journalist is interviewing someone with a publication record as long as Professor Schneider’s. When he tosses three articles at me in response to a question, it, umm, means I have to read them. So. In this interview, I will indicate which of his answers come to us directly via email and which are from previously published sources. Part 1 is completely composed of his email responses.

The first part of our interview is concerned with what is happening now, in May of 2009, regarding climate science and the political debate surrounding it.

(Via email)

How would you characterize the state of play regarding scientific discussion regarding anthropogenic contributions to global warming? What is happening in science today that bears on the debate?

Not much change over the past few decades, except nature is cooperating with theory as formerly theoretical projections like heat waves and ice melt is now observed--at faster rates than predicted. All in IPCC and NAS reports. Why ice is melting faster than the models suggest is still not known, but certainly not encouraging!

More specifically, the principal skeptic websites (Watt's Up With That, Climate Skeptic, Climate Audit and Climate Science) that I look at regularly seem to think they are winning the day. They think data is coming in that questions the established paradigm.

They have been thinking that as long as I have observed them and they have very few mainstream climate scientists who publish original research in climate refereed journals with them--a petroleum geologist's opinion on climate science is a as good as a climate scientists opinion on oil reserves. So petitions sent to hundreds of thousands of earth scientists are frauds. If these guys think they are "winning" why don't they try to take on face to face real climatologists at real meetings--not fake ideology shows like Heartland Institute--but with those with real knowledge--because they'd be slaughtered in public debate by Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Oppenheimer, Allen, Mitchell, even little ol' me. It’s easy to blog, easy to write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal.

In terms of U.S. energy policy, do you favor a cap and trade for emissions or a carbon tax? More specifically do you have an opinion on the cap and trade legislation currently under consideration?

They can be made equivalent with good implementation rules. I wrote at Kyoto I preferred a tax and recycle idea--still kind of do, but we need a shadow price on carbon regardless of mechanism--I'll attach my Kyoto editorial on this. (And we’ll look at it in Part II of this interview.)

In general terms, how would you characterize President Obama's energy policy? Is it pointed in the right direction, are the priorities roughly in balance, are the numbers adequate?

He is trying to reverse a big ship headed at a reef—it will take a long time and lots of compromising.

A variety of extreme events have been postulated during the debate about global warming: The death or reversal of the Gulf stream, very rapid melting of the ice covering Greenland or Antarctica leading to dramatic sea level rise, the spread of malaria to areas where it does not currently exist as a threat, etc. How realistic are these potential events? 50%? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0.1%?

These are subjective probabilities since there is very little clear empirical base to go on--and since the future by definition has no data before the fact. all are plausible at some probability above that for buying fire insurance--a few percent--and some like Greenland melt seem to be many tens of percent likely for warming much over another degree C.

Why don't Americans care about global warming? Only a third think humans are responsible for it, and most rate it last on a list of concerns.

That is one recent poll--others are not that weak, but it is true of the priority rating. People are confused by a phony media debate in which very dissimilar quality "sides" are given equal time and credibility that average people cannot judge easily. It confuses more than enlightens and thus creates a wait and see response. That is why we have expert assessments to sort out real knowledge from easy claims from special interests on all sides.

What is your best guess as to what will be the progress of temperatures over this century? Which IPCC scenario do you think will play out and what will temperatures be in 2050 and 2100?

No pinned down idea—I have a factor of at least three of uncertainty--as I say in all my writings--I'll attach some. (He did—sigh.) My best guess, 2-4 deg c warming by 2100, but if we're very lucky a bit less--and if very unlucky, even more.

Part 2 will look more deeply at the science and will refer to some of Professor Schneider’s more than 500 publications in scientific journals. 

 Update 2: It is evident that Examiner.com has now instituted Capcha for commenters, but has removed the email requirement and also has placed limits on comment length without specifying what those lengths are. I apologize for this on behalf of Examiner.com, and will let readers know when and if this gets corrected. Tom

In the first part of our interview with Professor Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, we covered a wide range of topics regarding the 'state of play' regarding the debate on global warming. One part of it got picked up by the rest of the media world, and that was where Professor Schneider, a tireless spokesperson advocating urgent action on climate change, mentioned that he or any one of several climate scientists could 'slaughter' the climate skeptics if they debated in an open forum. During the exchange I (sadly and mistakenly) referred to Professor Roger Pielke Sr.'s website (Climate Science) as a skeptic site, which resulted in Pielke challenging Professor Schneider to a debate.

In fairness to both, Professor Schneider was clear during the interview that the debate he was referring to was within an academic setting, and Professor Pielke, far from being a climate skeptic, believes strongly that climate change is occurring, but that other things that mankind does to the planet are even stronger than our emissions of CO2.

We start with Professor Schneider following up on this part of the previously published interview:

"By the way, some of the skeptics are going ballistic over my admittedly too provocative word "slaughter"--though given the framing I said I believe it would happen. But they misquote me in saying I challenged them to a debate. I challenged them to go to a legitimate scientific meeting with a knowledgeable audience and challenge from the floor with a room full of experts. I think they would be pretty unhappy with the outcome. I certainly will not schedule some political show debate in front of a non-scientific audience--all that does is generate confusions since lay audiences can rarely discern the quality of a scientific argument. If Roger wants a debate, he can set one up at the American Meteorological Society meeting or the American Geophysical Union meeting and if dates work I'll be happy to go and will encourage others like Ben Santer or Kevin Trenberth to join in. That I would do, A presidential like debate format with shallow staccato jibes and no nuanced arguments, no--confusion only in that style. I never do those anymore."

Interview with professor Stephen Schneider, Part 2

The interview was conducted by email, and several times Professor Schneider responded to my questions by sending documents for me to review. Let’s start by looking at some of his testimony before the New Zealand Committee on an Emissions Trading Scheme (similar in some ways to President Obama’s Cap and Trade Policy). This is a serious man saying there is a serious problem. On two occasions in his career he has shown considerable courage—first, changing his opinion about global warming and second, by disagreeing with the consensus about the effects of ‘nuclear winter.’ Although I have been skeptical about any catastrophic effects of global warming, it is hard to read this and not be impressed:

”… what’s the tipping point for Greenland ice sheet melting, which would raise the sea level by 5 metres, making current coastlines and ports no longer viable, and 50 percent of humanity having to move away, or worse, suffer in super storms? Well, nobody knows the answer to that. I would argue that I could even assign a few percent probability that the significant and unprecedented melting way faster than our theory predicts has already created a tipping point with effects playing out over-hundreds-of-years. I can’t rule that out at a few percent chance, and my colleague Jim Hansen at NASA has argued 1 degree more warming is the tipping point. Well, my own personal view is at 1 degree it’s probably a 25 percent chance; at 2 degrees it’s probably a 60 percent chance; at 3 degrees it’s probably a 90 percent chance. All of those numbers are an estimate of an expert; they are not observed frequencies. So that’s why we have not one expert, but large numbers of them collected through the IPCC to try to give you the risk management frameworks so that you can get the best realistic assessment of probabilities that science is currently capable of making, and the reason we revisit it all every 6 years is because the literature changes. Scientists do not hold to old beliefs. We are all skeptics by definition. We revise our views with new information. So even though the overall global warming issue has been relatively stable, there are lots of components of it that have not.”

Professor Roger Pielke Sr. has worked hard at making the case that other human effects, such as land-use policy and deforestation, are either as potent a force for climate change, or even more potent than anthropogenic emissions of CO2. How would you comment on this?
 

“Land is 30% of the earth--how does Roger explain why oceans warmed up? Also, cutting trees warms the surface often but cools the planet by raising albedo--as I said in ‘The Co-Evolution of Climate and Life’ in 1984. There are local warmings and teleconnected coolings and the converse. The tail does not necessarily wag the dog and nothing Roger has done is remotely convincing that ghgs (Green House Gases) are not involved globally--see all the fingerprint studies. Is land use important locally--of course--we've believed that for decades and I'm glad he does his runs. but overgeneralizations that his few model experiments prove ghgs not involved is nonsense--as the mainstream assessments say as well.”

To balance this, we bring out of the past some noteworthy aspects of Professor Schneider’s career. In the mid-70’s he published a paper that warned of possible global cooling. He was the first to retract this warning—and he also went against the consensus by saying that claims of ‘nuclear winter’ were over-stated. He’s been a skeptic himself.

You are linked to two controversial episodes in the public debate on climate change. First, skeptics love to point out that you wrote a paper 'predicting' global cooling, although they neglect to mention the geologic time frame you used. Second, in an interview with Discover magazine, you were quoted as saying, "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." Would you care to put that comment in context, or 'revise and extend' your remarks?

“The latter is a pernicious misquote--they always leaves out the last line; "I hope that means doing both". I explain that in the "mediarology" section of my website in responding to Julian Simon and the Detroit News. Misquoting is the act of liars, not one who hates soundbite journalism and mocks it only to be misrepresented by ideologists looking for an issue when they can't beat you straight up on science. Go to my website. Also, when there, see my rubuttal to George Will on the cooling thing. I published what was wrong with it in 1974-76, not Lindzen or Singer, but me. That is how science is to be done--state your assumptions, show the logical consequences, question your assumptions, recalculate and then republish--what I did for cooling==>warming and nuclear winter==>nuclear fall--Yes it was me, not the contrarians who did that.”

The major controversy surrounding global warming concerns the ‘sensitivity’ of the Earth’s atmosphere to feedback caused by additional CO2. Many—perhaps most—scientists, including Professor Schneider, believe that additional CO2 will cause other gases, particularly water vapor, to retain more heat, causing additional warming of the climate. Doubling CO2 therefore, may add 1.6 degrees Celsius on its own, as predicted a century ago by Svante Arrhenius, but the positive feedback acting on water vapor may multiply this by three times, or even more. And this is what everyone is searching for evidence to resolve. We are not yet 100% sure that this positive feedback really exists. If it does exist, we really do not know if it is a multiplier or at what level. (I don’t think Professor Schneider will agree with my level of uncertainty regarding this.)

Regarding climate sensitivity, principally following the publication of Roy Spencer's latest paper, What do you think the sensitivity of the Earth's atmosphere really is, numerically?

"I have long argued it is a probability density function we cannot know for many decades more. See my website on this and Granger Morgan and David Keiths' survey on it--in my website. Spencer has no significant following among knowledgeable climate modelers, for the reasons you can see at recent realclimate.org rebuttal:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
Also, let me paste in something from Roy (Spencer) in congressional testimony recently, asserting without data or evidence that water vapor feedback is wrong theory, while ignoring the Santer et al measurements—it is in fact increased with warming--just as models say. These guys you cite select out bits of stuff out of the broad context and run with it counting on most folks not to look it up or be able to understand what they find. That is why we have assessments like IPCC and NAS and Hadley Center etc--to sort out balanced claims from bits and pieces and out of context claims. Systems science is about preponderance of evidence, and there is a major preponderance on the side of the mainstream, and some speculative or non conforming points are always to be expected in complex issues and do not trump the preponderance. Here is what Roy (Spencer) wrote in this hearing:

“Most researchers who believe in substantial levels of global warming claim that water vapor feedback is surely positive, and strong. They invariably appeal to the fact that a warming tendency from the extra carbon dioxide will cause more water vapor to be evaporated from the surface, thus amplifying the warming. But again we see a lack of understanding of what maintains tropospheric water vapor levels. While abundant amounts of water vapor are being continuously evaporated from the Earth’s surface, it is precipitation systems that determine how much of that water vapor is allowed to remain in the atmosphere -- not the evaporation rate. This, then, is one example of researchers’ bias toward an emphasis on warming processes (water vapor addition), but not cooling processes (water vapor removal). The fact that warmer air masses have more water vapor is simply the result of the greater amounts of solar heating that those air masses were exposed to; it is not evidence for positive water vapor feedback in response to increasing carbon dioxide levels."

Remembering that this interview is conducted by email, Professor Schneider then says, “Check out attached from Santer et al--there is more water vapor despite the undocumented Spencer assertion it all rains out.”

Here is the lead paragraph from the paper by Santer et al that Professor Schneider references:

“Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated ‘‘fingerprint’’ pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data.”

We’ll close this part of the interview with Professor Schneider’s closing remarks before the New Zealand committee mentioned above:

"I’ll end on a personal note, because I’m asked this question all the time by my own members of Congress, senators, and so forth. It’s what I call the senator for a day: “Well, Dr Schneider, if you were up here, what would you do?”, and I, of course, thank the senators for that honor, and always tell them that what to do is a value judgment. So I first have to confess my world view, and my world view is that if a problem is created by a small fraction of the population—in this case, the 20 percent of the world’s people who are in the OECD nations that are responsible for about 75 percent of the accumulated greenhouse gases—then I think that that has a special obligation for them to try to correct what they’ve created. And if a problem has potential irreversibilities—that is, tipping points, either through species extinction, altered fire zones, ocean acidification, or ice sheets melting—that that gives the problem extra bump for action. So I first explain that I’m a risk-averse person for the planetary life support system and, therefore, I would put higher emphasis on dealing with this problem than other problems that people with different values might have.

That having been said, then I usually like to argue that there are really four or five steps in a policy sequence. We have been focusing a lot on cap and trade, because that can affect the carbon price; it’s called the shadow price whether you do it by direct means through a carbon tax or indirect means through a cap, which then the market will then determine the price, as you all well know, that’s the area where there’s been lots of emphasis from Kyoto, in California, in parts of the US, the EU... Rightly so, because if there is no tail pipe and smokestack charge, then people will (a) not work as hard to invent alternatives, and (b) will emit with impunity. This is called the classical externality or market failure, which is that since there’s no cost to those companies doing it, they, therefore, have incentive to emit, and the only way to restore the market to its actual value is the rules that require that internalization. But it’s politically divisive, as you obviously well know, and it is in the United States as well. My argument is why are we arguing first for effective shadow prices, which eventually must happen? Why don’t we start with adaptation funds for the climate change in the pipeline to help people through it?

Next, how about performance standards? Energy efficiency is the single cheapest, best way to achieve this. California has 50 percent of the emissions per capita and the energy used per capita of the rest of the United States, and 100 percent better than Texas. The reason is, California has a 35-year history of performance standards, building codes, refrigerator and air conditioner standards. In fact, it is popular by both Democrats and Republicans, because it saves the state annually, now, about 15 percent of its electricity bill, which for us is about US$7 billion a year. That gets people’s attention in a positive way. So the initial skeptics who said: “Oh, no, that’s Government control of private industry.” have withdrawn that objection, and the reason is that we use what we call a 7/11 policy. If you can do better than 7 percent interest per year—that’s the typical mortgage interest rate—or 11-year payback, it’s mandatory, because if it isn’t mandatory, it’s probably not going to get done. Texas doesn’t have mandatory rules. Therefore, they are very, very inefficient, and that’s because they have a different political culture than California, where the culture is on social protection much more so than on entrepreneurial rights. And there’s no right answer to that. That’s ideological, and the US as a whole would probably be putting it on performance standards. But performance standards give you the most immediate cuts and usually below zero cost. That’s why they’re popular.
The third thing we have to do is we have to have what I call a learning by doing feeding frenzy. We have got to get all those hundreds of promising start ups out there fired up--start up funding to get them over the hump. In venture capital, somebody’s going to make a trillion dollars when they invent a really efficient solar thermal system with storage, and there are a number competitors—or biochar or some other very promising ideas. But can we scale it up to the scale that we need to replace the energy that produces a trillion tons of CO2? That requires experimentation. We have to do it. We did not get coal started and nuclear power started or the electronics industry started by no-market interference, by free-market capitalism alone. It was Government subsidies and Government-direct funding. The Japanese still do that, and again we will have to do the same thing for green technology developers.

So to have those standards, we’ll have to have investments. Does that mean loan guarantees? It could. One member of Congress asked me. He said: “Well, how much do you think we’ll need in loan guarantees to be able to have a significant impact on the rate at which we learn?”, and I said: “I don’t know; $40 billion?”. He said: “$40 billion? That’s completely impossible. That’s outrageous. We’re having a problem with the economy.”, and I said: “But senator, we just spent a trillion dollars in 1 year to bail out a bunch of greedy bankers who were under-regulated. Why can’t we spend 5 percent of that every year to try to get planetary sustainability and long-term energy systems that will sustain the economy?”. And my President finally now agrees with that and is working very hard to try to achieve that goal.

The fourth thing in the climate policy sequence is what you’re working on, which is cap and trade or carbon taxes or shadow price. It is a critical component and it must happen. But in the meanwhile, while you argue the best way to implement it in the most cost-effective and fair way, and to try and come up with the rules you need so that everybody plays on a level playing field, we could do these other steps and make progress, get people’s mindset right, and set up the future."

See counter point below

Back to top

_____________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change
 

Recent NOAA Study: Climate change not all man-made
By: Tom Spears, Canwest News Service

It’s wrong to blame our warming climate on human pollution alone, says a major analysis by U. S. climate scientists who say North America’s warming and drying trend also has important natural causes.

Natural shifts in ocean currents have caused much of the warming in recent decades, and almost all of the droughts, says the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Most climate researchers today deal exclusively with man-made “greenhouse” gases, and often dismiss suggestions of naturally caused warming as unscientific.

Yet NOAA says Western Canada has warmed by two degrees and Eastern Canada hasn’t warmed at all because flows of air from naturally shifting Pacific currents have affected the West most.

The lengthy re-analysis of climate data doesn’t dispute that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels cause a warmer climate. But it raises questions about the details: How much warming? How many causes? And why isn’t it the same every-where?

It also stresses that we don’t understand climate as well as we like to think, because scientists only have good data from about 1948 onward.

“Most of the warming [worldwide] is the consequence of human influences,” said Martin Hoerling, a NOAA climate scientist. But he said the question remains, “What does that mean for my backyard?”

Policy-makers need to know whether natural changes or pollution is causing local conditions such as the current drought from California across to Texas, the report notes.

“All regions are not participating [in warming] at the same rate as the global temperature is changing,” Mr. Hoerling said. Some in the West are warming rapidly, and some not at all (the southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada).

Oceans carry vast amounts of heat, releasing heat and moisture into air, which then travels inland. The re-analysis focused on this fact.

Some of the changes in North America’s warming trend of the past half-century have been due to shifting ocean currents, the NOAA team found. It estimates the “natural” change is substantial and could be close to half of all warming in North America (though it is still less than the amount caused by greenhouse gases.)

The study found:

- The 56-year trend of annual surface temperature showed a rise of 0.9C, plus or minus one-tenth of a degree.

- The greatest warming — up two degrees — has taken place across Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon and Alaska. Quebec and Atlantic Canada stayed cool.

That East-West difference “is not what we would expect from the effect of greenhouse gases alone,” Mr. Hoerling said. Greenhouses gases should have influenced both. However, NOAA believes Western Canada is receiving more warm air due to shifting patterns of the Pacific Ocean currents.

- Variations within North America “are very likely influenced by variations in global sea surface temperatures through the effects of the latter on atmospheric circulation, especially during winter.” The term “very likely” is defined as a chance of 90% or more.

- It’s “unlikely” that patterns of drought have changed due to global warming caused by human pollution. Rather, natural shifts in ocean currents are probably to blame. For instance, the current drought in Texas and the southwest are due to La Nina, a Pacific Ocean current that starts and stops periodically (such as El Nino), and cuts off the movement of moist air inland. Warmer temperatures from greenhouse gases, however, would worsen the basic drought.

- Seven of the warmest 10 years since 1951 occurred in the decade from 1997 to 2006. The data in the study cover only to the end of 2007.

The study, Reanalysis of Historical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features, was completed in December but hasn’t been widely publicized.

Click here to read the report

Meanwhile, a study published in the research journal Science last week raises further questions about our under-standing of global warming. It disputes the theory that global warming is causing more major hurricanes.

NOAA and the University of Wisconsin at Madison blame, instead, a reduction in the number of volcanic eruptions and dust storms near the equator. When there’s less airborne dust and ash, more sunshine reaches the planet’s surface, which warms the tropical oceans and spawns strong hurricanes.

Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report

Republicans are raising questions about why the EPA apparently dismissed an analyst's report questioning the science behind global warming.
 

By Judson Berger

______________________________________________________________

Tornado Research Could Give You Extra Time to Reach Safety

Scientists involved in the largest tornado field experiment in history are doing their best to give you every extra minute to seek shelter from dangerous tornadoes.

The average time between when a tornado warning is issued and a when a tornado touches ground is 14 minutes. That may be enough time for some, but not for everyone:  schools, nursing homes, hospitals and other large-gathering places need all the time they can get to move people into safe quarters.

Now, NOAA scientists and their partners from a dozen organizations  have launched a massive tornado research project that could put more time on your side.

The project, Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes EXperiment2 (VORTEX2 or V2), is the largest and most ambitious attempt to study tornadoes in history and will involve more than 100 scientists and 40 research vehicles, including 10 mobile radars.

For five weeks in May and June, scientists will sample the environments of supercell thunderstorms  — violent thunderstorms capable of producing damaging winds, large hail, and tornadoes — that form over much of the U.S. but are more common in the central Great Plains known as “tornado alley.”

This collaborative, nationwide research effort is jointly funded by NOAA, the National Science Foundation, 10 universities, and three nonprofit organizations.

Uncovering the Secret Lives of Tornadoes

Researchers close in on the massive storms using a fleet of mobile radars, weather balloons, and minivans mounted with weather instruments to collect important storm data.

Data collected from VORTEX2 is expected help clarify how, when, and why some thunderstorms produce tornadoes and others do not. They also hope to more thoroughly understand how tornadoes are structured and how tornado-force winds relate to damage.

VORTEX2 researchers are convinced that learning more about how tornadoes form may significantly improve tornado forecasts and warning times. They hope that in the future, storm forecasts will include details about a tornado’s strength and lifespan.

All Tornadoes, All the Time Online

Scientists from NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) are using Facebook, Twitter, and a blog called V2Talk to increase public awareness of severe weather safety, share the cutting-edge science behind the VORTEX2, and inspire the next generation of researchers.

One enthusiastic Facebook fan, “Karla from Virginia,” wrote in a recent post: “Safe travels — I hope you intercept some serious weather soon!  Without that data, you won’t be able to learn how to keep us safer.”

You can follow the progress of V2 scientists as they traverse “tornado alley” by visiting the VORTEX2 Web site.

Back to top

______________________________________________________________

Public asked to help monitor life on earth
By: Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent, Reuters

Back to top

______________________________________________________________

Meteoroid Bombardment May Have Made Earth More Habitable, Says Study
By: Science Daily

Large bombardments of meteoroids approximately four billion years ago could have helped to make the early Earth and Mars more habitable for life by modifying their atmospheres, suggests the results of a new study.

When a meteoroid from space enters a planet’s atmosphere, extreme heat causes some of the minerals and organic matter on its outer crust to be released as water and carbon dioxide (as a meteor burning up in the atmosphere) before it breaks up and hits the ground (and becomes a meteorite).

Researchers suggest the delivery of this water could have made Earth’s and Mars’ atmospheres wetter. The release of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide could have trapped more energy from sunlight to make Earth and Mars warm enough to sustain liquid oceans.

In the new study, researchers from Imperial College London analyzed the remaining mineral and organic content of fifteen fragments of ancient meteorites that had crashed around the world to see how much water vapour and carbon dioxide they would release when subjected to very high temperatures like those that they would experience upon entering the Earth’s atmosphere.

The researchers used a new technique called pyrolysis-FTIR, which uses electricity to rapidly heat the fragments at a rate of 20,000 degrees Celsius per second, and they then measured the gases released. 

They found that on average, each meteorite was capable of releasing up to 12 percent of the object's mass as water vapor and 6 percent of its mass as carbon dioxide when entering an atmosphere. They concluded that contributions from individual meteorites were small and were unlikely to have a significant impact on the atmospheres of planets on their own.

The researchers then analyzed data from an ancient meteor shower called the Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB), which occurred 4 billion years ago, where millions of rocks crashed to Earth and Mars over a period of 20 million years.

Using published models of meteoritic impact rates during the LHB, the researchers calculated that 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide and 10 billion tons of water vapor could have been delivered to the atmospheres of Earth and Mars each year.

This suggests that the LHB could have delivered enough carbon dioxide and water vapor to turn the atmospheres of the two planets into warmer and wetter environments that were more habitable for life, say the researchers.

Professor Mark Sephton, from Imperial’s Department of Earth Science and Engineering believes the study provides important clues about Earth’s ancient past: “For a long time, scientists have been trying to understand why Earth is so water rich compared to other planets in our solar system. The LHB may provide a clue. This may have been a pivotal moment in our early history where Earth’s gaseous envelope finally had enough of the right ingredients to nurture life on our planet.”

Lead author of the study, Dr Richard Court from Imperial’s Department of Earth Science and Engineering, adds: “Because of their chemistry, ancient meteorites have been suggested as a way of furnishing the early Earth with its liquid water. Now we have data that reveals just how much water and carbon dioxide was directly injected into the atmosphere by meteorites. These gases could have got to work immediately, boosting the water cycle and warming the planet.”

However, researchers say Mars’ good fortune did not last.  Unlike Earth, Mars doesn’t have a magnetic field to act as a protective shield from the Sun’s solar wind. As a consequence, Mars was stripped of most of its atmosphere. A reduction in volcanic activity also cooled the planet. This caused its liquid oceans to retreat to the poles where they became ice.

Back to top

Back to top

______________________________________________________________

Register Today for NASA Education Workshops Taking Place This Summer
By: NASA Education Office

"Voyage" to the Moon and Beyond Educator Workshop at Space Center Houston on July 7, 2009

Celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing with a full day of educational experiences at Space Center Houston. The "Voyage" to the Moon and Beyond Educator Workshop will take place on July 7, 2009. Each educator will leave this workshop with new curriculum support materials, lunar sample certification, six hours of continuing education credit and a better understanding of our moon and solar system.

The cost for this workshop is $40 per person. It includes lunch at Space Center Houston.

The workshop includes four classes that will take participants to the far reaches of the solar system. Classes include:

--Voyage Solar System Model and Starlab Planetarium: Tour the solar system with the state-of-the-art Voyage Solar System model and travel virtually in the Starlab Planetarium. Each participant will receive "Journey Through the Solar System" curriculum support material that was written by the National Center for Earth and Space Science Education .

--Space Suits - Through the Generations: Spacesuits have come a long way since the Mercury program. Learn about the history of the spacesuit, its transformations and the resources available to educators.

--Lunar Sample Certification: Learn about the history of the moon and its geology. Participants will become certified to borrow lunar and meteorite samples. Each participant will receive a Moon Educator Guide.

--Saturn V Experience: Visit Rocket Park and see a full size Saturn V rocket. Learn about the Apollo missions and how they changed the world. Each participant will receive the NASA Rocket Educator Guide filled with ideas on how to use rockets in the classroom.

For more information, visit http://www.spacecenter.org/TeachersWorkshop.html.

Questions about this workshop should be directed to edprograms@spacecenter.org.

Teacher Workshop: Using NASA Observations to Study Changes in Chesapeake Bay

Join NASA for a three-day workshop for middle school teachers that will integrate cutting-edge science observations from space with classroom-ready lessons. This workshop will take place at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., on July 7-9, 2009.

In 2000, the states surrounding the Chesapeake Bay watershed signed an agreement to make significant commitments to changes that will remove the bay from the Environmental Protection Agency's list of Impaired U.S. Waters by 2010. Aided by NASA's remote-sensing missions, scientists studying the Chesapeake Bay have made fascinating discoveries that have unlocked the unique history of the bay and that can inform strategic plans for improving its future.

An overarching theme of the Chesapeake Bay's place in space, time and the Earth system will tie together lessons in geology (impact craters), land use change, air quality and water cycle as participants look at the long-ago past and into the future. Education specialists who work with NASA missions will provide a rich experience and a multitude of resources for learning more.

This workshop is limited to 30 participants. Participating in the workshop itself is free, but participants must cover their own expenses for travel, meals and hotel.

This workshop will also be offered in 2010.

For more information and to register online, visit http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/bay/.

If you have questions about this workshop, please contact Trena Ferrell at Trena.M.Ferrell@nasa.gov. Please include "Chesapeake Bay" in the subject line of your message.

NASA's Beginning Engineering, Science and Technology Workshop on July 30-31, 2009

Apollo 11 was the first manned mission to land on the moon in July 1969. Do you remember the excitement you felt hearing and seeing that happen? Now zoom forward to the present and imagine bringing that same excitement to your children or grandchildren. Today's students will watch humans return to the moon and even be a part of a living and working community on the moon. NASA wants to inspire this generation to be the engineers and scientists that make lunar exploration a reality.

For two days, NASA invites you to be a part of a unique, interactive, hands-on workshop that will teach all generations how NASA plans to return to the moon. Come make lunar maps, build a satellite and program a rover. This promises to be a fun-filled learning experience for all.

This multi-generational, two-day workshop event will take place July 30-31, 2009, in Point Lookout, Maine.

Explore together, learn together and inspire each other.

For more information, please contact Dr. Marci Delaney at marci.delaney@nasa.gov, 301-286-7992.

Hands-on Astronomy and Earth-science Education Workshops for Grade 4-12 Teachers on Sept. 12-13, 2009

A weekend of hands-on workshops and informative science talks will be offered as part of the 120th anniversary meeting of the nonprofit Astronomical Society of the Pacific. These workshops will take place Sept. 12-13, 2009, at the Westin Hotel near the San Francisco Airport in Millbrae, Calif.

The program will include space science and earth science workshops for educators of grades 4 through 12, as well as sessions for educators who work in informal settings (such as museums, nature centers, amateur astronomy clubs, and community organizations.)

No background in astronomy will be assumed or required. Experienced educators from the Society's staff, from NASA and NSF-sponsored projects, and from educational institutions around the country will be presenting. Only a limited number of spaces will be available, and, thanks to conference supporters, registration for each day of the workshop will be only $39.

Sunday afternoon will feature a special nontechnical lecture series about the search for life among the stars, with some of the leading scientists from the SETI Institute describing the scientific experiments now under way to identify life beyond Earth.

Thanks to the support of the Spitzer Space Telescope Science Center, a limited number of travel-support scholarships (of up to $300 per person) will be made available for educators.

For more information, visit http://www.astrosociety.org/events/2009mtg/workshops.html.

When Thunder Roars, Go Indoors!

“Summertime, and the livin′ is easy,” so the George Gershwin song goes. True, it is a time for picnics in the park, dips in the pool, golf outings, and hikes in the mountains.

But summer weather isn’t all fun in the sun.

Violent summer storms can form quickly and stretch for hundreds of miles. Thunderstorms can

 produce deadly lightning capable of striking up to 10 miles away — so, even if you don't see rain you could be in harm’s way.

“When planning outdoor activities, we want you to remember that lightning is extremely dangerous,” says John Jensenius, National Weather Service lightning safety expert. “Lightning can kill — and even those who survive a lightning strike are often left with permanent and serious disabilities. The best advice is ‘when thunder roars, go indoors’.”

Striking Statistics That Can Save Your Life

Don’t be fooled by blue skies. If you hear thunder, lightning is close enough to pose an immediate threat. Each year in the United States, more than 400 people are struck by lightning. While it’s true a small percentage of lightning strike victims die, many more survivors are left with serious lifelong pain and neurological disabilities.

To avoid being struck by lightning, NOAA’s National Weather Service recommends that you:

The National Weather Service tracks when and where lightning fatalities occur in order to understand who is at greatest risk and where to focus safety and education efforts.

No Such Thing as a Lucky Strike

The National Weather Service is providing a variety of educational resources to help protect you and your loved ones, including the new “Lightning Safety for You and Your Family” brochure, which provides the basic facts about lightning and explains how to stay safe during potentially deadly thunderstorms. You’ll also find helpful tips for what to do if someone is struck by lightning.

Lightning is a serious danger. Keep your summer safe and full of easy living by learning more at NOAA’s Lightning Safety Web site.

NASA Announces Winners in Second Annual Lunar Art Contest

The results of the second annual NASA Lunar Art Contest are out-of-this-world productions from high school and college students from around the globe.

"Crater Core Sample," a painting by Zachary Madere of the Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design in Lakewood, Colo., was judged the best of more than 90 imaginative entries. The painting shows an astronaut holding an icy cylinder in a darkened crater while two other astronauts look on.

This year, in addition to two-dimensional artwork and sculpture, NASA accepted three-dimensional art and digital art, including video.

The Lunar Art Contest, sponsored by NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., allows students from the creative arts disciplines to become involved with and excited about the nation's space exploration program.

"The contest also enables us to see the future from very different and important perspectives," said Richard Antcliff, director of Langley's Strategic Relationships Office, which manages the art contest.

A total of 147 students from more than 70 institutions participated as teams or individuals. More than half the entries were from high school students. Entries were received from 25 U.S. states, France, Poland, India and Romania. A panel of 12 reviewers that included professional artists, scientists, engineers and educators evaluated the entries using three criteria: the artist's statement, creativity and artistic expression, and whether the art represented a valid scenario.

Students who won the overall and first place awards in each category will be recognized as part of a celebration at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington that marks the 40th anniversary of the first Apollo landing. The winning art will be on display in the form of a digital exhibit. Afterward, the exhibit will be available for display at NASA facilities, public venues, the students' schools and elsewhere as requested.

In addition to Madere, who received the best overall score, top winners in the College and University Division are:
- Two-dimensional art: (tie) Jesse Lenz, West Liberty State College, West Liberty, W.V. and Brent Bishop, University of Colorado at Boulder
- Three-dimensional art: Kristine Beam, Winston Salem State University, Winston Salem, N.C.
- Digital art (video): Chi Thien Pham, Institut d'Etudes Supérieures des Arts, or IESA, Paris

Top winners in the High School or Secondary School Division are:
- Best overall score: Pratham Karnik, Walt Whitman High School, Rockville, Md.
- Two-dimensional art: Josh Kim, Kent Mountain View Academy, Auburn, Wash.
- Three dimensional: Sami Khaleeq (team entry), Clear Brook High School, Houston
- Digital art: Matthew Bruemmer, Ronald Reagan High School, San Antonio

For a gallery of winning art and videos, visit: http://artcontest.cet.edu

Back to top

_________________________________________________________________

M.Y. S.P.A.C.E. Photos from the conference posted.
Click Here

Be a M.Y. S.P.A.C.E. Teacher
Click here
to find out how

_________________________________________________________________

Students Join Brookhaven Lab's NASA Space Radiation Summer School
By: Brookhaven National Laboratory

Students and scientists from laboratories and universities throughout the world have travelled to New York to participate in the sixth annual NASA Space Radiation Summer School at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, which runs from May 27 through June 19. Working in Brookhaven Lab's Medical Department and NASA Space Radiation Laboratory (NSRL), the group will study the risks astronauts may face during future long-term space flights. NSRL is a unique facility that simulates the harsh radiation environment

of outer space. Seventy-eight students and scientists have participated in the program to date.

Studies at NSRL (http://www.bnl.gov/medical/NASA/LTSF.asp) simulate space radiation to learn how the intense rays may promote the development of cancer, as well as how this radiation can affect the central nervous system and other organ systems of the body. NSRL researchers are also looking at ways to protect against these dangers through shielding, biological countermeasures, and other strategies to minimize the risk to space travelers.

As the space shuttle approaches retirement and the International Space Station nears completion, NASA is building the next fleet of vehicles to bring astronauts back to the moon, and possibly to Mars and beyond. These longer-distance, long-term missions will expose astronauts to far higher levels of radiation than previously experienced. It is critically important to learn the potential effects of these intense rays and how best to protect space travelers from them. Space radiobiology, a field that blends the disciplines of physics and biology, addresses these questions.

"The radiation environment in space is heterogeneous, and contains charged particles of high energies. The NSRL enables researchers to perform studies here on earth to examine the biological effects of exposure to these charged particles," said Peter Guida, Medical Department Liaison Scientist for this program at Brookhaven Lab. "This type of research is essential to help determine the possible risks that space travelers may encounter." Guida is coordinating efforts with William F. Morgan of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the 2009 NASA Summer School Scientific Director.

Said Morgan, "We want to increase the pipeline of researchers who can tackle these challenges. It is important to educate and nurture the next generation of scientists, as the types of radiation commonly encountered in space are quite different than those we are likely to be exposed to on Earth. The NASA Space Radiation Summer School provides a unique opportunity for students and scientists alike."

The program has three scientific modules: physics (led by John Norbury of NASA Langley Research Center), biology (led by Gregory Nelson of Loma Linda University Medical Center), and experimental methods (led by Janet Baulch of the University of Maryland).

Sixteen graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and working scientists, and four auditing professionals are participating in this year's summer school (see http://www.bnl.gov/medical/nasa/NSRSS/2009/Students_2009.asp). The program is sponsored by NASA and organized and managed by Brookhaven Lab, Loma Linda University Medical Center, and Universities Space Research Association (a consortium of universities, research organizations, and governmental groups involved in space research).

The intensive, three-week course offers a unique physical and intellectual environment not duplicated in the nation's universities, medical schools or research institutes. Students participate in both classroom activities and scientific experiments, working side-by-side with top space scientists from research organizations such as NASA, Brookhaven Lab, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Loma Linda University, Columbia University, University of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts General Hospital, UT Southwestern Medical Center and University of Maryland Medical School in Baltimore. Experimental creativity and interdisciplinary approaches are emphasized.

NSRL is a $34-million facility that was built by Brookhaven Lab with funding from NASA with the cooperation of the Office of Nuclear Physics within the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science. Operational since 2003, the facility is part of the Lab's collider-accelerator complex, which is maintained by the DOE Office of Science's Office of Nuclear Physics and receives incremental operations and maintenance funding from NASA. It employs beams of heavy ions extracted from Brookhaven's Booster accelerator that are the best in the U.S. for studying the effects of radiation on living organisms. Scientists from more than 20 research institutions from throughout the U.S. and abroad work year-round at NSRL, supported mainly by NASA funding.

Journalist note: Contact us (see below) to arrange a photo of a particular individual student or group. Students will be at Brookhaven Lab until June 19.

One of ten national laboratories overseen and primarily funded by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Brookhaven National Laboratory conducts research in the physical, biomedical, and environmental sciences, as well as in energy technologies and national security. Brookhaven Lab also builds and operates major scientific facilities available to university, industry and government researchers. Brookhaven is operated and managed for DOE's Office of Science by Brookhaven Science Associates, a limited-liability company founded by the Research Foundation of State University of New York on behalf of Stony Brook University, the largest academic user of Laboratory facilities, and Battelle, a nonprofit, applied science and technology organization.

Back to top

___________________________________________________________

Chasing Tornadoes

With an average energy of roughly 1 million pounds of TNT, tornados are one of nature’s most powerful phenomena. And while atmospheric scientists know a great deal about tornados, such as the conditions in which they are most likely to form, no one yet understands exactly what makes a tornado or how to accurately predict their creation.

Click here to view this movie
Running time 2:45 minutes

Hands-On Math Activity:
Tetradice
Subject: Mathematics
Topics: Statistics and Probability
Grades: 4 - 8

Back to top

______________________________________________________________

New Report Provides Authoritative Assessment of National, Regional Impacts of Global Climate Change

Climate change is already having visible impacts in the United States, and the choices we make now will determine the severity of its impacts in the future, according to a new and authoritative federal study assessing the current and anticipated domestic impacts of climate change.

The report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,” compiles years of scientific research and takes into account new data not available during the preparation of previous large national and global assessments. It was produced by a consortium of experts from13 U.S. government science agencies and from several major universities and research institutes. With its production and review spanning Republican and Democratic administrations, it offers a valuable, objective scientific consensus on how climate change is affecting—and may further affect—the United States.

“This new report integrates the most up-to-date scientific findings into a comprehensive picture of the ongoing as well as expected future impacts of heat-trapping pollution on the climate experienced by Americans, region by region and sector by sector,” said John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. “It tells us why remedial action is needed sooner rather than later, as well as showing why that action must include both global emissions reductions to reduce the extent of climate change and local adaptation measures to reduce the damage from the changes that are no longer avoidable.”

The report, which confirms previous evidence that global temperature increases in recent decades have been primarily human-induced, incorporates the latest information on rising temperatures and sea levels; increases in extreme weather events; and other climate-related phenomena.  Adding greatly to its practical value in the realm of policy and planning, it is the first such report in almost a decade to break out those impacts by U.S. region and economic sector, and the first to do so in such great detail.

“This report stresses that climate change has immediate and local impacts – it literally affects people in their backyards,” said Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “In keeping with our goals, the information in it is accessible and useful to everyone from city planners and national legislators to citizens who want to better understand what climate change means to them. This is an issue that clearly affects everyone.”

A product of the interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program, the definitive 190-page report, produced under NOAA’s leadership, is written in plain language to better inform members of the public and policymakers. Commissioned in 2007 and completed this spring, the science-based report is a consensus product spanning two presidential administrations and transcends political leanings or biases. It underwent intensive review by scientists inside and outside of government and includes information more recent than that incorporated into the last major report on global climate change released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The report is not intended to direct policy makers to take any one approach over another to mitigate climate change or adapt to it. But it emphasizes that the choices we make now will determine the severity of climate change impacts in the future. “Implementing sizable and sustained reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible would significantly reduce the pace and the overall amount of climate change,” the report states, “and would be more effective than reductions of the same size initiated later.”

The study finds that Americans are already being affected by climate change through extreme weather, drought and wildfire trends and details how the nation’s transportation, agriculture, health, water and energy sectors will be affected in the future. The study also finds that the current trend in the emission of greenhouse gas pollution is significantly above the worst-case scenario that this and other reports have considered.

Among the main findings are:

By breaking out results in terms of region and economic sector the report provides a valuable tool not just for policymakers but for all Americans who will be affected by these trends. Its information can help:

Responses to climate change fall into two categories. The first involves “mitigation” measures to limit climate change by reducing emissions of heat-trapping pollution or increasing their removal from the atmosphere. The second involves “adaptation” measures to improve our ability to cope with or avoid harmful impacts, and take advantage of beneficial ones. “Both of these are necessary elements of an effective response strategy,” said Jerry Melillo of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, MA, a report co-chair.

“By comparing impacts that are projected to result from higher versus lower emissions of heat-trapping gasses, our report underscores the importance and real economic value of reducing those emissions,” said Tom Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. and one of the co-chairs of the report. “It shows that the choices made now will have far-reaching consequences.”

The report draws from a large body of scientific information, including the set of 21 Synthesis and Assessment reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The government agencies affiliated with the program include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, State, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; NASA; National Science Foundation; Smithsonian Institution; and the United States Agency for International Development.

The report is available for download online.

Accompanying video will be available on NASA TV June 16 at 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. For coordinates and schedule information, please see the NASA TV Web site.

Back to top

______________________________________________________________

Endeavor
Educators

Back to top

______________________________________________________________

____________________________