Arquivo da tag: Mudanças climáticas

Faltam cinco dias para um alerta global pela consciência ambiental (WWF/Envolverde)

18/3/2013 – 10h50

por Redação do WWF Brasil

n12 300x183 Faltam cinco dias para um alerta global pela consciência ambientalNo próximo sábado, 23 de março, às 20h30 (hora local), milhares, talvez bilhões de pessoas apagarão as luzes de suas casas, comércios, repartições, monumentos e outros logradouros importantes num ato simbólico de alerta contra as mudanças no clima.

É a nona edição da Hora do Planeta, um movimento que começou tímido na Austrália e hoje envolve milhares de cidades em mais de 152 países. Aqui o País a Hora do Planeta é promovida pelo WWF-Brasil e o objetivo é superar os números do ano passado, atraindo para a Hora do Planeta todas as capitais estaduais e o Distrito Federal, e ultrapassando a marca de 131 cidades participantes em 2012.

Sua cidade pode seguir o exemplo das muitas que já o fizeram e se inscrever enviando um email para cidades@wwf.org.br e assinando o Termo de Adesão. Escolas e instituições também não podem ficar de fora.

Sua participação pessoal é fundamental para o sucesso da Hora do Planeta. Não podemos mais consumir o equivalente a um planeta e meio de recursos para nossa subsistência na Terra. Adote práticas sustentáveis desde já e depois do 23 de março. Recicle. Reduza. Reutilize. É possível adotar mudanças simples no seu estilo de vida, que terão um grande impacto global. Evite desperdício de água e energia. Recorra a fontes alternativas, como solar e eólica, se possível. Use menos o carro e prefira o transporte público, a bicicleta e andar a pé. Coma menos carne vermelha. Consuma produtos locais, sempre que possível orgânicos. Informe-se mais sobre o tema. Nosso futuro comum está em perigo e as mudanças climáticas em curso ameaçam toda a vida na Terra. Sua consciência é a maior arma para combatê-las.

Acompanhe a Hora do Planeta no Brasil através dos nossos canais no Facebook, Twitter e YouTube. Divulgue a nossa mensagem. E veja aqui os desafios do “Eu vou se você for” — pessoas propondo alternativas para que todos adotem um estilo de vida mais correto ecologicamente (e de quebra mais saudável!).

Junte-se a nós. A Hora do Planeta já começou e não pode terminar quando as luzes se acenderem no sábado.

* Publicado originalmente no site WWF Brasil.

Não faltam avisos: cuidado com o clima (Envolverde)

Ambiente

18/3/2013 – 11h05

por Washington Novaes*

clima 300x225 Não faltam avisos: cuidado com o clima

Foto: Divulgação/ Internet

É preciso insistir e insistir: as grandes cidades brasileiras – mas não apenas elas – precisam criar com urgência políticas do clima que as habilitem a enfrentar com eficiência os “desastres naturais”, cada vez mais frequentes e intensos e que provocam um número cada vez maior de mortos e outras vítimas; precisam arrancar do fundo das gavetas projetos que permitam evitar inundações em áreas urbanas; criar planos diretores que incorporem as novas informações nessa área; rever os padrões de construção, já obsoletos, concebidos em outras épocas, para condições climáticas muito mais amenas – e que se mostram cada vez mais vulneráveis a desabamentos; incorporar as universidades nessa busca de formatos científicos e tecnológicos.

Segundo este jornal (21/2), de 12 locais alagados em uma semana no mês passado na cidade de São Paulo, 11 já sofriam com inundações há 20 anos – entre eles, alguns dos pontos com mais veículos e pessoas, como o Vale do Anhangabaú, a Avenida 23 de Maio, a Rua Turiaçu. E a Prefeitura de São Paulo promete desengavetar 79 obras antienchentes, algumas delas abafadas há 15 anos. Inacreditável. O governo do Estado assegura que vai trabalhar em 14 piscinões (outros 30 caberão a parcerias público-privadas), além de aplicar mais R$ 317 milhões em desassoreamento do Rio Tietê, onde já foi gasto R$ 1,7 bilhão (terá de gastar muito mais enquanto não decidir atuar nas dezenas de afluentes do rio sob o asfalto, que carregam sedimentos, lixo, esgotos, etc.). A população paulistana ficará muito grata – ela e 1 milhão de pessoas que entram e saem diariamente da cidade (Estado, 27/2).

Enquanto não houver uma ação enérgica na área do clima e na revisão dos padrões de construção em toda parte, continuaremos assim, como nas últimas semanas: obra irregular provoca desabamento de prédio na Liberdade e mata pedestre (1.ª/3); edifício de 20 andares desaba no Rio e arrasta mais dois, com 22 mortos (25/1); desabamento de lajes em construção de 13 pavimentos em São Bernardo do Campo mata duas pessoas (6/2); enchente em fábrica mata quatro em Sorocaba; inundação no Rio mata cinco pessoas (8/3); homem salva três pessoas e morre junto com um estudante, levados pela enxurrada durante temporal de cinco horas no Ipiranga, quando caiu um terço da chuva prevista para o mês e fez transbordar o Tamanduateí (11/3); deslizamento na moderna Rodovia dos Imigrantes mata uma pessoa e interrompe o tráfego (22/2), numa chuva de 183,4 milímetros, algumas vezes mais do que o índice médio de chuvas em um mês na região. Até o Arquivo Nacional, no Rio de Janeiro, perdeu mais de 130 caixas de documentos históricos num temporal no centro da cidade (10/3).

Não pode haver ilusões. O Brasil já está em quinto lugar entre os países que mais têm sofrido com desastres climáticos. O Semiárido, em outubro último, teve o mês mais seco em 83 anos, segundo o Operador Nacional do Sistema Elétrico (Estado, 31/10); 10 milhões de pessoas foram atingidas em mais de 1300 municípios. O Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas, órgão da Convenção do Clima, este ano só divulgará parte de seu novo relatório, mas seu secretário-geral, Rajendra Pachauri, já adverte que é preciso “espalhar a preocupação”, de vez que, com o aumento da temperatura, até 2050, entre 2 e 2,4 graus Celsius, o nível dos oceanos se elevará entre 0,4 e 1,4 metro – mas poderá ser mais, com o avanço do degelo no Ártico (Guardian, 28/2).

Não é por acaso, assim, que o sistema escolar público dos Estados Unidos já tenha, este ano, incorporado as questões do clima a seu currículo para os alunos. E que o Conselho da União Europeia tenha aprovado 20% do seu orçamento – ou 960 bilhões – para políticas e ações nessa área. Porque as informações são altamente preocupantes. Como as da Organização das Nações Unidas para a Alimentação e a Agricultura (9/3) de que duplicou, de 1970 para cá, a superfície de terras afetadas pela seca no mundo; ou a de que as emissões de dióxido de carbono CO2 por desmatamento, atividades agrícolas e outros formatos, entre 1990 e 2010, cresceram muito – e o Brasil responde por 25,8 bilhões de toneladas equivalentes de CO2, seguido pela Indonésia (13,1 bilhões de toneladas) e pela Nigéria (3,8 bilhões).

Os problemas com o clima, diz a Universidade de Reading (1.º/3), indicam que será preciso aumentar a produtividade na agricultura em 12% a partir de 2016, para compensar as perdas e as mudanças nos ambientes. A vegetação nas latitudes mais ao norte da América está mudando, começa a assemelhar-se à das áreas mais ao sul, segundo a Nasa (UPI, 12/3), que analisou o período 1982-2011; e lembra que as atividades no campo terão de adaptar-se. Também há alterações muito fortes em outras regiões, como nos Rios Tigre e Eufrates, que em sete anos (2003-2010) perderam 144 quilômetros cúbicos de água, equivalentes ao volume do Mar Morto (O Globo, 14/2).

Em toda parte as informações inquietam. Universidades da Flórida, por exemplo (Huffpost Miami, 12/3), alertam que será preciso transplantar três grandes estações de tratamento de esgotos no sul do Estado para evitar que elas fiquem “confinadas em ilhas” em menos de 50 anos, por causa da elevação do nível do mar. O almirante Samuel J. Locklear III, comandante da frota norte-americana no Pacífico, diz que essa elevação do nível dos oceanos “é a maior ameaça à segurança”. E que China e Índia precisam preparar-se para socorrer e evacuar centenas de milhares ou milhões de pessoas.

Retornando ao início deste artigo: as cidades brasileiras não podem adiar o enfrentamento das mudanças do clima, principalmente quanto a inundações e deslizamentos de terras (o Brasil tem mais de 5 milhões de pessoas em áreas de risco). Segundo a revista New Scientist (20/10/2012), 32 mil pessoas morreram no mundo, entre 2004 e 2010, em eventos dessa natureza (em terremotos, 80 mil). Não faltam avisos.

Washington Novaes é jornalista.

** Publicado originalmente no site O Estado de S. Paulo.

Obama Will Use Nixon-Era Law to Fight Climate Change (Bloomberg)

By Mark Drajem – Mar 15, 2013 12:50 PM GMT-0300

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg. Similar analyses could be made for the oil sands that would be transported in TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline, and leases to drill for oil, gas and coal on federal lands, such as those for Arch Coal Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp.

President Barack Obama is preparing to tell all federal agencies for the first time that they should consider the impact on global warming before approving major projects, from pipelines to highways.

The result could be significant delays for natural gas- export facilities, ports for coal sales to Asia, and even new forest roads, industry lobbyists warn.

“It’s got us very freaked out,” said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, a Washington-based group that represents 11,000 companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Southern Co. (SO) The standards, which constitute guidance for agencies and not new regulations, are set to be issued in the coming weeks, according to lawyers briefed by administration officials.

In taking the step, Obama would be fulfilling a vow to act alone in the face of a Republican-run House of Representatives unwilling to pass measures limiting greenhouse gases. He’d expand the scope of a Nixon-era law that was first intended to force agencies to assess the effect of projects on air, water and soil pollution.

“If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” Obama said last month during his State of the Union address. He pledged executive actions “to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

Illinois Speech

The president is scheduled to deliver a speech on energy today at the Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Illinois. He is pressing Congress to create a $2 billion clean-energy research fund with fees paid by oil and gas producers.

While some U.S. agencies already take climate change into account when assessing projects, the new guidelines would apply across-the-board to all federal reviews. Industry lobbyists say they worry that projects could be tied up in lawsuits or administrative delays.

For example, Ambre Energy Ltd. is seeking a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to build a coal-export facility at the Port of Morrow in Oregon. Under existing rules, officials weighing approval would consider whether ships in the port would foul the water or generate air pollution locally. The Environmental Protection Agency and activist groups say that review should be broadened to account for the greenhouse gases emitted when exported coal is burned in power plants in Asia.

Keystone Pipeline

Similar analyses could be made for the oil sands that would be transported in TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline, and leases to drill for oil, gas and coal on federal lands, such as those for Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) and Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU)

If the new White House guidance is structured correctly, it will require just those kinds of lifecycle reviews, said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity inWashington. The environmental group has sued to press for this approach, and Snape says lawsuits along this line are certain if the administration approves the Keystone pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada’s tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

“The real danger is the delays,” said Eisenberg of the manufacturers’ group. “I don’t think the answer is ever going to be ‘no,’ but it can confound things.”

Lawyers and lobbyists are now waiting for the White House’s Council on Environmental Qualityto issue the long bottled-up standards for how agencies should address climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970.

Environmental Impact

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider and publish the environmental impact of their actions before making decisions. Those reviews don’t mandate a specific course of action. They do provide a chance for citizens and environmentalists to weigh in before regulators decide on an action — and to challenge those reviews in court if it’s cleared.

“Each agency currently differs in how their NEPA reviews consider the climate change impacts of projects, as well as how climate change impacts such as extreme weather will affect projects,” Taryn Tuss, a Council on Environmental Quality spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. “CEQ is working to incorporate the public input we received on the draft guidance, and will release updated guidance when it is completed.”

‘Major Shakeup’

The new standards will be “a major shakeup in how agencies conduct NEPA” reviews, said Brendan Cummings, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity in San Francisco.

The White House is looking at requiring consideration of both the increase in greenhouse gases and a project’s vulnerability to flooding, drought or other extreme weather that might result from global warming, according to an initial proposal it issued in 2010. Those full reports would be required for projects with 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions or more per year, the equivalent of burning about 100 rail cars of coal.

The initial draft exempted federal land and resource decisions from the guidance, although CEQ said it was assessing how to handle those cases. Federal lands could be included in the final standards.

The White House guidance itself won’t force any projects to be stopped outright. Instead, it’s likely to prompt lawsuits against federal projects on these grounds, and increase the probability that courts will step in and order extensive reviews as part of the “adequate analysis” required in the law, said George Mannina, an attorney at Nossaman LLP in Washington.

Next Administration

“The question is: Where does this analysis take us?” he said. “Adequate analysis may be much broader than the agency and applicant might consider.”

While the Obama administration’s guidance could be easily rescinded by the next administration, the court rulings that stem from these cases will live on as precedents, Mannina said.

Lobbying groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association weighed in with the White House against including climate in NEPA, a law initially aimed at chemical leaks or air pollution.

“Not only will this result in additional delay of the NEPA process, but will result in speculative and inaccurate modeling that will have direct impacts on approval of specific projects,” the National Mining Association in Washington wrote in comments to the White House in 2010.

Leases Challenged

The group represents Arch Coal (ACI) and Peabody, both based in St. Louis. Leases that theDepartment of Interior issued for those companies to mine for coal in Wyoming are facing lawsuits from environmental groups, arguing that the agency didn’t adequately tally up the effect on global warming from burning that coal.

Given Obama’s pledge to address global warming, “this is a massive contradiction,” said Jeremy Nichols, director of climate at WildEarth Guardians in Denver, which filed lawsuits against the leases.

Arch Coal referred questions to the mining group.

Beth Sutton, a Peabody spokeswoman, said in an e-mail, “We believe the current regulatory approach to surface mine permits is appropriate and protects the environment.”

Since CEQ first announced its proposal, more than three dozen federal approvals were challenged on climate grounds, including a highway project in North Carolina, a methane-venting plan for a coal mine in Colorado, and a research facility in California, according to a chart compiled by the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

Next Target

The next target is TransCanada (TRP)’s application to build the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) Keystone pipeline. The Sierra Club and 350.org drew 35,000 people to Washington last month to urge Obama to reject the pipeline. Meanwhile, the NEPA review by the State Department included an initial analysis of carbon released when the tar sands are refined into gasoline and used in vehicles.

It stopped short, however, of saying the project would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. With or without the pipeline, the oil sands will be mined and used as fuel, the report said. That finding is likely to be disputed in court if the Obama administration clears the project.

“Keystone is ground zero,” said Snape, of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Clearly this will come into play, and it will be litigated.”

Any actions by the administration now on global warming would pick up on a mixed record over the past four years.

Cap-and-Trade

While Obama failed to get Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA reversed course from the previous administration and ruled that carbon-dioxide emissions endanger public health, opening the way for the agency to regulate it.

Using that finding, the agency raised mileage standards for automobiles and proposed rules for new power plants that would essentially outlaw the construction of new coal-fired power plants that don’t have expensive carbon-capture technology.

Environmentalists such as the Natural Resources Defense Council say the most important action next will be the EPA’s rules for existing power plants, the single biggest source of carbon-dioxide emissions. The NEPA standards are separate from those rules, and will affect how the federal government itself is furthering global warming.

“Agencies do a pretty poor job of looking at climate change impacts,” Rebecca Judd, a legislative counsel at the environmental legal group Earthjustice in Washington. “A thorough guidance would help alleviate that.”

Pobre previsão do tempo (Folha de S.Paulo)

15/03/2013 – 03h01

Michel Laub

Num artigo publicado na Folha em 2010 (http://goo.gl/fLVDJ), João Moreira Salles discutiu a hipervalorização das humanidades no Brasil, em detrimento de disciplinas como matemática, física e engenharia. Um dos efeitos da distorção, acrescento, é a pouca familiaridade –do público, dos intelectuais, da imprensa– com o discurso técnico e científico. E, por consequência, a docilidade com que são aceitas falácias nessas áreas.

Exemplos: propaganda de governo (números para todos os gostos), dietas da moda (pesquisas com todo tipo de metodologia e patrocínio), tratamentos de saúde (custo-benefício muitas vezes discutível) e até planilhas de futebol (nas quais um volante que só dá passes curtos terá índice de acerto maior que um lançador vertical).

De minha parte, resolvi testar um discurso científico bastante presente no cotidiano: o da meteorologia. Durante 28 dias de janeiro último, anotei erros e acertos do “Jornal do Tempo” (http://jornaldotempo.uol.com.br).

Um trabalho leigo, por certo, e consciente de que o serviço em questão não é representativo do setor no país ou no mundo. A home page do “Jornal do Tempo” apresenta dados que são uma média, um resumo –como na previsão da TV– de registros mais detalhados, inclusive em algumas de suas páginas internas.

Ocorre que médias são a face pública da meteorologia, o tal discurso –em tom seguro e cordial– que nos orienta a escolher a roupa de manhã, a levar ou não o guarda-chuva. E aí, assim como alguma lógica basta para perceber furos em trabalhos estatísticos, não é preciso ser expert para afirmar que há muita imprecisão no ramo.

As temperaturas do meu caderninho quase sempre estiveram dentro dos intervalos previstos na véspera (23 em 28 ocorrências). Comparadas à previsão da semana anterior, o índice cai para 17 em 28. Se botarmos lado a lado o intervalo previsto sete dias antes e o previsto no próprio dia, há diferença em 28 de 28.

Já nas condições atmosféricas, cuja conferência é mais difícil –da minha casa em Pinheiros, não tenho como saber se fui traído por uma garoa enquanto dormia ou algo assim–, houve 15 erros em 28.

São coisas aparentemente sem importância: um ou dois graus a mais, sol durante algumas horas num dia “fechado e chuvoso, com poucas trovoadas”. Mas há reparos objetivos senão aos métodos de medição, ao menos à forma como o resultado é exposto.

Assim, cravar uma temperatura única numa cidade como São Paulo, com seus morros e depressões, paraísos verdes e infernos de concreto em 1,5 milhão de quilômetros quadrados, é inexato por princípio. Igualmente a previsão do tempo numa só frase, que contempla tanto o pé d’água rápido e inofensivo quanto o dilúvio e o caos, dependendo da estrutura do bairro onde se está (“sol, alternando com chuva em forma de pancadas isoladas”).

A questão fica mais complexa quando transcende o território do erro, que é humano e aceitável. E da própria meteorologia, aqui citada apenas como sintoma. A autoridade que emana do discurso científico não se limita a influenciar debates acadêmicos sobre química ou astronomia.

Trata-se, também, de um fenômeno das ciências humanas. Seus desdobramentos políticos, econômicos e morais na sociedade como um todo não são desprezíveis. Foram teorias racialistas que justificaram a escravidão. Foi uma doutrina de incentivo à competição tecnológica que criou as armas nucleares.

No caso do aquecimento global, a grande bandeira científica de hoje, antes de tudo há um imperativo de bom senso: é mais inteligente viver de forma harmônica com a natureza, com menos emissão de carbono, desmatamento e desperdício consumista. Também imagino que previsões de climatologia sejam mais precisas do que, digamos, as da moça que descreve as condições do Sudeste inteiro em dez segundos no “Jornal Nacional”. Mas é fato que a revista “Time” alertou sobre a “nova era glacial” em 1974. E deu uma capa célebre, dez anos depois, sobre a hoje contestada ligação entre infarto e gema de ovo.

Os dois textos reproduziam uma conjectura científica influente à época. É recomendável seguir as que o são hoje –afinal, é o que mais próximo temos de certezas fora do fanatismo religioso ou ideológico. Apenas é bom, como dúvida saudável, em qualquer área de conhecimento vendido como infalível, lembrar da pobre previsão do tempo.

When It Rains These Days, Does It Pour? Has the Weather Become Stormier as the Climate Warms? (Science Daily)

Mar. 17, 2013 — There’s little doubt — among scientists at any rate — that the climate has warmed since people began to release massive amounts greenhouse gases to the atmosphere during the Industrial Revolution.

But ask a scientist if the weather is getting stormier as the climate warms and you’re likely to get a careful response that won’t make for a good quote.

There’s a reason for that.

“Although many people have speculated that the weather will get stormier as the climate warms, nobody has done the quantitative analysis needed to show this is indeed happening,” says Jonathan Katz, PhD, professor of physics at Washington University in St. Louis.

In the March 17 online version ofNature Climate Change, Katz and Thomas Muschinksi, a senior in physics who came to Katz looking for an undergraduate thesis project, describe the results of their analysis of more than 70 years of hourly precipitation data from 13 U.S. sites looking for quantitative evidence of increased storminess.

They found a significant, steady increase in storminess on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State, which famously suffers from more or less continuous drizzle, a calm climate that lets storm peaks emerge clearly.

“Other sites have always been stormy,” Katz says, “so an increase such as we saw in the Olympic Peninsula data would not have been detectable in their data.”

They may also be getting stormier, he says, but so far they’re doing it under cover.

The difference between wetter and stormier

“We didn’t want to know whether the rainfall had increased or decreased,” Katz says, “but rather whether it was concentrated in violent storm events.”

Studies that look at the largest one-day or few-day precipitation totals recorded in a year, or the number of days in which in which total precipitation is above a threshold, measure whether locations are getting wetter, not whether they’re getting stormier, says Katz.

To get the statistical power to pick up brief downpours rather than total precipitation, Muschinski and Katz needed to find a large, fine-grained dataset.

“So we poked around,” Katz says, “and we found what we were looking for in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration databases.”

NOAA has hourly precipitation data going back to 1940 or even further for many locations in the United States. Muschniski and Katz chose 13 sites that had long runs of data and represented a broad range of climates, from desert to rain forest.

They then tested the hypothesis that storms are becoming more frequent and intense by taking different measurements of the “shape” formed by the data points for each site.

Measuring these “moments” as they’re called, is a statistical test commonly used in science, says Katz, but one that hasn’t been applied to this problem before.

“We found a significant steady increase in stormy activity on the Olympic Peninsula,” Katz says. “We know that is real.”

“We found no evidence for an increase in storminess at the other 12 sites,” he said, “but because their weather is intrinsically stormier, it would be more difficult to detect a trend like that at the Olympic Peninsula even if it were occurring.”

The next step, Katz says, is to look at a much large number of sites that might be regionally averaged to reveal trends too slow to be significant for one site.

“There are larger databases,” he says, “but they’re also harder to sift through. Any one site might have half a million hourly measurements over the period we’re looking at, and to get good results. we have to devise an algorithm tuned to the database to filter out spurious or corrupted data.”

You could call that a rainy-day project.

Journal Reference:

  1. T. Muschinski, J. I. Katz. Trends in hourly rainfall statistics in the United States under a warming climateNature Climate Change, 2013; DOI:10.1038/nclimate1828

Bombshell: Recent Warming Is ‘Amazing And Atypical’ And Poised To Destroy Stable Climate That Enabled Civilization (Climate Progress)

By Joe Romm on Mar 8, 2013 at 12:44 pm

New Science Study Confirms ‘Hockey Stick’: The Rate Of Warming Since 1900 Is 50 Times Greater Than The Rate Of Cooling In Previous 5000 Years

Temperature change over past 11,300 years (in blue, via Science, 2013plus projected warming this century on humanity’s current emissions path (in red, via recent literature).

A stable climate enabled the development of modern civilization, global agriculture, and a world that could sustain a vast population. Now, the most comprehensive “Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years” ever done reveals just how stable the climate has been — and just how destabilizing manmade carbon pollution has been and will continue to be unless we dramatically reverse emissions trends.

Researchers at Oregon State University (OSU) and Harvard University published their findings today in the journal Science. Their funder, the National Science Foundation, explains in a news release:

With data from 73 ice and sediment core monitoring sites around the world, scientists have reconstructed Earth’s temperature history back to the end of the last Ice Age.

The analysis reveals that the planet today is warmer than it’s been during 70 to 80 percent of the last 11,300 years.

… during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.

In short, thanks primarily to carbon pollution, the temperature is changing 50 times faster than it did during the time modern civilization and agriculture developed, a time when humans figured out where the climate conditions — and rivers and sea levels — were most suited for living and farming. We are headed for 7 to 11°F warming this century on our current emissions path — increasing the rate of change 5-fold yet again.

By the second half of this century we will have some 9 billion people, a large fraction of whom will be living in places that simply can’t sustain them —  either because it is too hot and/or dry, the land is no longer arable, their glacially fed rivers have dried up, or the seas have risen too much.

We could keep that warming close to 4°F — and avoid the worst consequences — but only with immediate action.

This research vindicates the work of Michael Mann and others showing that recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause during the past 2000 years — the so-called Hockey Stick — and in fact extends that back to at least 4000 years ago. I should say “vindicates for the umpteenth time” (see “Yet More Studies Back Hockey Stick“).

Lead author Shaun Marcott of OSU told NPR that the paleoclimate data reveal just how unprecedented our current warming is: “It’s really the rates of change here that’s amazing and atypical.” He noted to the AP, “Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly.”

And the rate of warming is what matters most, as Mann noted in an email to me:

This is an important paper. The key take home conclusion is that the rate and magnitude of recent global warmth appears unprecedented for *at least* the past 4K and the rate *at least* the past 11K. We know that there were periods in the past that were warmer than today, for example the early Cretaceous period 100 million yr ago. The real issue, from a climate change impacts point of view, is the rate of change—because that’s what challenges our adaptive capacity. And this paper suggests that the current rate has no precedent as far back as we can go w/ any confidence—11 kyr arguably, based on this study.

Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, told the AP:

We have, through human emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, indefinitely delayed the onset of the next ice age and are now heading into an unknown future where humans control the thermostat of the planet.

Unfortunately, we have decided to change the setting on the thermostat from “Very Stable, Don’t Adjust” to “Hell and High Water.” It is the single most self-destructive act humanity has ever undertaken, but there is still time to aggressively slash emissions and aim for a setting of “Dangerous, But Probably Not Fatal.”

A Scientist’s Misguided Crusade (N.Y.Times)

OP-ED COLUMNIST

By JOE NOCERA

Published: March 4, 2013 

Last Friday, at 3:40 p.m., the State Department released its “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” for the highly contentious Keystone XL pipeline, which Canada hopes to build to move its tar sands oil to refineries in the United States. In effect, the statement said there were no environmental impediments that would prevent President Obama from approving the pipeline.

Two hours and 20 minutes later, I received a blast e-mail containing a statement by James Hansen, the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA — i.e., NASA’s chief climate scientist. “Keystone XL, if the public were to allow our well-oiled government to shepherd it into existence, would be the first step down the wrong road, perpetuating our addiction to dirty fossil fuels, moving to ever dirtier ones,” it began. After claiming that the carbon in the tar sands “exceeds that in all oil burned in human history,” Hansen’s statement concluded: “The public must demand that the government begin serving the public’s interest, not the fossil fuel industry’s interest.”

As a private citizen, Hansen, 71, has the same First Amendment rights as everyone else. He can publicly oppose the Keystone XL pipeline if he so chooses, just as he can be as politically active as he wants to be in the anti-Keystone movement, and even be arrested during protests, something he managed to do recently in front of the White House.

But the blast e-mail didn’t come from James Hansen, private citizen. It specifically identified Hansen as the head of the Goddard Institute, and went on to describe him as someone who “has drawn attention to the danger of passing climate tipping points, producing irreversible climate impacts that would yield a different planet from the one on which civilization developed.” All of which made me wonder whether such apocalyptic pronouncements were the sort of statements a government scientist should be making — and whether they were really helping the cause of reversing climate change.

Let’s acknowledge right here that the morphing of scientists into activists is nothing new. Linus Pauling, the great chemist, was a peace activist who pushed hard for a nuclear test ban treaty. Albert Einstein also became a public opponent of nuclear weapons.

It is also important to acknowledge that Hansen has been a crucial figure in developing modern climate science. In 2009, Eileen Claussen, now the president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, told The New Yorker that Hansen was a “heroic” scientist who “faced all kinds of pressures politically.” Today, his body of work is one of the foundations upon which much climate science is built.

Yet what people hear from Hansen today is not so much his science but his broad, unscientific views on, say, the evils of oil companies. In 2008, he wrote a paper, the thesis of which was that runaway climate change would occur when carbon in the atmosphere reached 350 parts per million — a point it had already exceeded — unless it were quickly reduced. There are many climate change experts who disagree with this judgment — who believe that the 350 number is arbitrary and even meaningless. Yet an entire movement,350.org, has been built around Hansen’s line in the sand.

Meanwhile, he has a department to run. For a midlevel scientist at the Goddard Institute, what signal is Hansen sending when he takes the day off to get arrested at the White House? Do his colleagues feel unfettered in their own work? There is, in fact, enormous resentment toward Hansen inside NASA, where many officials feel that their solid, analytical work on climate science is being lost in what many of them describe as “the Hansen sideshow.” His activism is not really doing any favors for the science his own subordinates are producing.

Finally, and most important, Hansen has placed all his credibility on one battle: the fight to persuade President Obama to block the Keystone XL pipeline. It is the wrong place for him to make a stand. Even in the unlikely event the pipeline is stopped, the tar sands oil will still be extracted and shipped. It might be harder to do without a pipeline, but it is already happening. And in the grand scheme, as I’ve written before, the tar sands oil is not a game changer. The oil we import from Venezuela today is dirtier than that from the tar sands. Not that the anti-pipeline activists seem to care.

What is particularly depressing is that Hansen has some genuinely important ideas, starting with placing a graduated carbon tax on fossil fuels. Such a tax would undoubtedly do far more to reduce carbon emissions and save the planet than stopping the Keystone XL pipeline.

A carbon tax might be worth getting arrested over. But by allowing himself to be distracted by Keystone, Hansen is hurting the very cause he claims to care so much about.

Big military guy more scared of climate change than enemy guns (Grist)

By Susie Cagle

11 Mar 2013 6:13 PM

Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, chief of U.S. Pacific Command, doesn’t look like your usual proponent of climate action. Spencer Ackerman writes at Wired that Locklear “is no smelly hippie,” but the guy does believe there will be terrible security threats on a warming planet, which might make him a smelly hippie in the eyes of many American military boosters.

13-03-11AdmSamuelLocklear
Commander U.S. 7th Fleet

Everyone wants him to be worried about North Korean nukes and Chinese missiles, but in an interview with The Boston Globe, Locklear said that societal upheaval due to climate change “is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen … that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about.’’

“People are surprised sometimes,” he added, describing the reaction to his assessment. “You have the real potential here in the not-too-distant future of nations displaced by rising sea level. Certainly weather patterns are more severe than they have been in the past. We are on super typhoon 27 or 28 this year in the Western Pacific. The average is about 17.”

Locklear said his Hawaii-based headquarters — which is … responsible for operations from California to India — is working with Asian nations to stockpile supplies in strategic locations and planning a major exercise for May with nearly two dozen countries to practice the “what-ifs.”

Locklear isn’t alone in his climate fears. A recent article by Julia Whitty takes an in-depth look at what the military is doing to deal with climate change. A 2008 report by U.S. intelligence agencieswarned about national security challenges posed by global warming, as have later reports from the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. New Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel understands the threat, too. People may be surprised sometimes, Adm. Locklear, but they really shouldn’t be!

Will not-a-dirty-hippie Locklear’s words help to further mainstream the idea that climate change is a serious security problem? And what all has the good admiral got planned for this emergency sea-rising drill in May?

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for Twitter.

Terra se aproxima de maiores temperaturas em 11 mil anos; Derretimento no Canadá pode ser irreversível (Folha de São Paulo)

JC e-mail 4680, de 08 de Março de 2013.

Salvador Nogueira

Pesquisa reuniu dados de 73 localidades ao redor do mundo para estimar a temperatura global (e local) no período geológico conhecido como Holoceno

Um novo estudo conduzido por pesquisadores da Universidade Estadual do Oregon e da Universidade Harvard, ambas nos EUA, reconstruiu a temperatura média da Terra nos últimos 11,3 mil anos para compará-la aos níveis atuais.

A boa notícia: a Terra hoje está mais fria do que já esteve em sua época mais quente desse período. A má: se os modelos dos climatologistas estiverem certos, atingiremos um novo recorde de calor até o final do século.

O trabalho, publicado na revista “Science”, reuniu dados de 73 localidades ao redor do mundo para estimar a temperatura global (e local) no período geológico conhecido como Holoceno, que começou ao final da última era do gelo, há 11 mil anos.

Depois de consolidar todas as informações, em sua maioria provenientes de amostras de fósseis em sedimentos oceânicos, num único quadro –além de usar técnicas matemáticas para preencher os “buracos” encontrados nas diversas fontes usadas para estimar a temperatura no passado–, os cientistas puderam recriar uma “pequena história da variação climática da Terra”.

Diz-se pequena porque os resultados não permitem enxergar a variação ocorrida em uns poucos anos. É como se cada ponto nos dados representasse a temperatura em um período de 120 anos.

A HISTÓRIA

Os dados confirmam uma velha desconfiança dos cientistas: a de que a Terra passou por um período de aquecimento que começou cerca de 11 mil anos atrás. Em 1,5 mil anos, o planeta esquentou cerca de 0,6ºC e assim se estabilizou, durante cerca de 5.000 anos.

Então, 5,5 mil anos atrás, começou um novo processo de esfriamento –que terminou há 200 anos, com o que ficou conhecido como a “pequena era do gelo”. O planeta ficou 0,7ºC mais frio.

Entram em cena a industrialização acelerada e o século 20. O planeta volta a se esquentar. No momento, ele ainda não bateu o recorde de temperatura visto no início do Holoceno, mas já está mais quente que em 75% dos últimos 11 mil anos.

Assim, o estudo confirma que a temperatura da Terra está subindo em tempos recentes e mostra que a subida é muito mais rápida do que se pensava.

“Essa pesquisa mostra que já experimentamos quase a mesma faixa de mudança de temperatura desde o início da Revolução Industrial que foi vista nos 11 mil anos anteriores da história da Terra –mas essa mudança aconteceu muito mais depressa”, comenta Candace Major, diretor da divisão de Ciências Oceanográficas da Fundação Nacional de Ciência dos EUA, que financiou o estudo.

Por outro lado, a baixa resolução temporal do estudo (é impossível distinguir efeitos de poucos anos) dificulta a comparação com o atual fenômeno de aquecimento.

Para a mudança climática atual se tornar relevante na escala de tempo analisada pelo modelo de reconstrução dos últimos 11 mil anos, ela precisa continuar no próximo século. Segundo os modelos do IPCC (Painel Intergovernamental para Mudança Climática), da ONU, é isso que vai acontecer.

Contudo, ainda há incertezas sobre a magnitude do fenômeno. De toda forma, mesmo pelas estimativas mais otimistas, quando chegarmos a 2100, se nada for feito, provavelmente estaremos vivendo o período mais quente dos últimos 11 mil anos.

* * *

JC e-mail 4680, de 08 de Março de 2013.

via Reuters

As geleiras canadenses, terceiro maior depósito de gelo depois da Antártida e da Groenlândia, podem estar sofrendo um derretimento sem volta que deve aumentar o nível do mar, afirmaram cientistas

Cerca de 20% das geleiras no norte do Canadá podem desaparecer até o fim do século 21, num derretimento que pode acrescentar 3,5 cm ao nível do mar.

Segundo artigo na revista “Geophysical Research Letters”, o derretimento de geleiras brancas exporia a tundra escura, que tende a absorver mais calor e acelerar o derretimento.

A ONU estima um aumento do nível do mar entre 18 cm e 59 cm neste século ou mais se a cobertura de gelo da Antártida e da Groenlândia começar a derreter mais rápido.

A projeção de perda de 20% do volume de gelo no Canadá se baseou em um cenário com aumento de temperatura médio de 3ºC neste século e de 8ºC no Ártico canadense, dentro das previsões da ONU.

The Crisis in Climate-Change Coverage (Truth Out)

Sunday, 03 March 2013 07:23

By Josh StearnsFree Press

Climate activist Bill McKibben speaking at the San Francisco Bay Area's Moving Planet rally. (Photo: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/350org/6186391697/sizes/m/in/photostream/" target="_blank"> 350.org / flickr</a>)Climate activist Bill McKibben speaking at the San Francisco Bay Area’s Moving Planet rally. (Photo: 350.org / flickr)

Fifty-thousand people recently marched in Washington, D.C., calling on President Obama to fulfill his recent promises to take immediate and meaningful action to address the looming climate crisis.

And just days before, a group of environmental journalists, scientists and activists came together in a Web chat to discuss the state of climate-change coverage in America.

The event, organized by Free Press andOrion Magazine, featured Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones; Bill McKibben, author and 350.org founder; Wen Stephenson, writer and climate activist; M. Sanjayan, CBS News contributor and Nature Conservancy scientist; Thomas Lovejoy, chief biologist at the Heinz Center and creator of the PBS show Nature; and reporter Susie Cagle of Grist.org.

Here’s what they had to say. (You can listen to the entire discussion here.)

Structure Versus Culture

A complex mix of structural and cultural factors has affected climate-change coverage in the U.S. The forces that shape U.S. media have not been kind to environmental reporting. Years of media consolidation have led to dramatic layoffs in commercial newsrooms, and environment and science desks are often the first to go. In addition, M. Sanjayan noted that media consolidation has had an echo-chamber effect: All climate stories sound the same and they lack depth, specificity and connection to place.

The U.S. also under-funds noncommercial alternatives, like public media, where climate-change reporting should thrive. The best environmental writing is happening at the margins of our media at longtime nonprofit magazines and new online startups. In contrast, mainstream outlets have tended to legitimize climate-change deniers in the face of widespread scientific consensus about the effects of global warming.

Wen Stephenson argued that journalists have been reticent to raise the alarm about climate change. “The mainstream media has failed to cover the climate crisis as a crisis,” he said.

Empathy Versus Objectivity

A repeated theme of the conversation was the line between advocacy and journalism. There was disagreement about where the line should fall. Kate Sheppard said she was disappointed that coverage of the BP oil spill didn’t inspire more sustained activism on climate change, but noted that it wasn’t her job to organize, only to inform.

Stephenson, on the other hand, argued that when it comes to climate change, journalists need to find their moral bearings. Acknowledging the limits of objectivity, Stephenson discussed the value of empathy and the need to understand the true human and natural stakes of this debate.

Telling a More Human Story

The panelists agreed that climate-change reporting needs to get personal. Journalists need to better connect climate change to people’s lives, their homes, their families and their everyday concerns. Susie Cagle said that when she reports on climate change she does so through the lens of cities, rivers and food.

Bill McKibben pointed to the way 350.org activists have shifted the narrative — literally putting their bodies on the line by holding protests and other events around the globe. McKibben also noted the importance of people making their own media — with photos, videos and blogs —especially when there are fewer and fewer local media outlets willing to take on the work.

Sanjayan said we need a better way to frame climate-change reporting. The Keystone XL Pipeline story has gained so much traction in part because there is a clear bad guy, a clear target and clear actions people can take. Those elements aren’t always present, so journalists need to find different ways to reach their audiences. We need to be aware of who is telling the story. Sanjayan noted that all too often, climate-change reporting is too U.S.-centric and doesn’t tell the full global story.

Quality and Quantity Versus Reach and Impact

Thirty-two years ago television offered nothing of substance about the natural world or the threats it faced. This was the inspiration for Thomas Lovejoy, the scientist who coined the term “biodiversity,” to pitch a new kind of show to New York public TV station WNET.

Since PBS’ Nature first aired, a lot has changed. Now, Sheppard said, there is a ton of great environmental reporting, but it’s not always easy to find and it’s not always seen by the people who need to see it. One way to foster better coverage, Sheppard said, is to support what’s already out there by sharing it, funding it and subscribing to those doing it.

Panelists acknowledged that many publications — like this Web chat itself — end up speaking to the choir when we desperately need to get beyond it. For Sheppard, one way of doing that is through journalism collaborations that help get content out to new audiences and on different platforms.

For Cagle, the platform piece is key. She talked about the need to get beyond the “wall of text” and tell more immersive stories about climate. For her, the use of audio and illustrations helps bring readers into the story. “Art can make stories more accessible and personal,” said Cagle.

Sanjayan discussed the potential for cable TV to be a powerful messenger. For example, he is working on an in-depth series for Showtime on climate change.

Next Steps

The discussion offered few cut-and-dry prescriptions for concrete changes that need to happen to embolden and expand climate coverage. Panelists agreed that we need a journalism of solutions, not just a journalism of problems. For newsrooms and journalists, the first step is to begin to understand the scope and scale of this crisis, and write as if your life depended on it.

Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions? (Yale e360)

22 OCT 2012

On issues ranging from genetically modified crops to nuclear power, environmentalists are increasingly refusing to listen to scientific arguments that challenge standard green positions. This approach risks weakening the environmental movement and empowering climate contrarians.

By Fred Pearce

From Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring to James Hansen’s modern-day tales of climate apocalypse, environmentalists have long looked to good science and good scientists and embraced their findings. Often we have had to run hard to keep up with the crescendo of warnings coming out of academia about the perils facing the world. A generation ago, biologist Paul Ehrlich’sThe Population Bomb and systems analysts Dennis and Donella Meadows’The Limits to Growth shocked us with their stark visions of where the world was headed. No wide-eyed greenie had predicted the opening of an ozone hole before the pipe-smoking boffins of the British Antarctic Survey spotted it when looking skyward back in 1985. On issues ranging from ocean acidification and tipping points in the Arctic to the dangers of nanotechnology, the scientists have always gotten there first — and the environmentalists have followed.

And yet, recently, the environment movement seems to have been turning up on the wrong side of the scientific argument. We have been making claims that simply do not stand up. We are accused of being anti-science — and not without reason. A few, even close friends, have begun to compare this casual contempt for science with the tactics of climate contrarians.

That should hurt.

Three current issues suggest that the risks of myopic adherence to ideology over rational debate are real: genetically modified (GM) crops, nuclear power, and shale gas development. The conventional green position is that we should be opposed to all three. Yet the voices of those with genuine environmental credentials, but who take a different view, are being drowned out by sometimes abusive and irrational argument.

In each instance, the issue is not so much which side environmentalists should be on, but rather the mind-set behind those positions and the tactics adopted to make the case. The wider political danger is that by taking anti-scientific positions, environmentalists end up helping the anti-environmental sirens of the new right.

The issue is not which side environmentalists should be on, but rather the mind-set behind their positions.

Most major environmental groups — from Friends of the Earth to Greenpeace to the Sierra Club — want a ban or moratorium on GM crops, especially for food. They fear the toxicity of these “Frankenfoods,” are concerned the introduced genes will pollute wild strains of the crops, and worry that GM seeds are a weapon in the takeover of the world’s food supply by agribusiness.

For myself, I am deeply concerned about the power of business over the world’s seeds and food supply. But GM crops are an insignificant part of that control, which is based on money and control of trading networks. Clearly there are issues about gene pollution, though research suggesting there is a problem is still very thin. Let’s do the research, rather than trash the test fields, which has been the default response of groups such as Greenpeace, particularly in my home country of Britain.

As for the Frankenfoods argument, the evidence is just not there. As the British former campaigner against GMs, Mark Lynas, points out: “Hundreds of millions of people have eaten GM-originated food without a single substantiated case of any harm done whatsoever.”

The most recent claim, published in September in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, that GM corn can produced tumors in rats, has been attacked as flawed in execution and conclusion by a wide range of experts with no axe to grind. In any event, the controversial study was primarily about the potential impact of Roundup, a herbicide widely used with GM corn, and not the GM technology itself.

Nonetheless, the reaction of some in the environment community to the reasoned critical responses of scientists to the paper has been to claim a global conspiracy among researchers to hide the terrible truth. One scientist was dismissed on the Web site GM Watch for being “a longtime member of the European Food Safety Authority, i.e. the very body that approved the GM corn in question.” That’s like dismissing the findings of a climate scientist because he sits on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the “very body” that warned us about climate change. See what I mean about aping the worst and most hysterical tactics of the climate contrarians?

Stewart Brand wrote in his 2009 book Whole Earth Discipline: “I dare say the environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than any other thing we’ve been wrong about.” He will see nods of ascent from members of a nascent “green genes” movement — among them environmentalist scientists, such as Pamela Ronald of the University of California at Davis — who say GM crops can advance the cause of sustainable agriculture by improving resilience to changing climate and reducing applications of agrochemicals.

Yet such people are routinely condemned as apologists for an industrial conspiracy to poison the world. Thus, Greenpeace in East Asia claims that children eating nutrient-fortified GM “golden rice” are being used as “guinea pigs.” And its UK Web site’s introduction to its global campaigns says, “The introduction of genetically modified food and crops has been a disaster, posing a serious threat to biodiversity and our own health.” Where, ask their critics, is the evidence for such claims?

The problem is the same in the energy debate. Many environmentalists who argue, as I do, that climate change is probably the big overarching issue facing humanity in the 21st century, nonetheless often refuse to recognize that nuclear power could have a role in saving us from the worst.

For environmentalists to fan the flames of fear of nuclear power seems reckless and anti-scientific.

Nuclear power is the only large-scale source of low-carbon electricity that is fully developed and ready for major expansion.

Yes, we need to expand renewables as fast as we can. Yes, we need to reduce further the already small risks of nuclear accidents and of leakage of fissile material into weapons manufacturing. But as George Monbiot, Britain’s most prominent environment columnist, puts it: “To abandon our primary current source of low carbon energy during a climate change emergency is madness.”

Monbiot attacks the gratuitous misrepresentation of the risks of radiation from nuclear plants. It is widely suggested, on the basis of a thoroughly discredited piece of Russian head-counting, that up to a million people were killed by the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. In fact, it is far from clear that many people at all — beyond the 28 workers who received fatal doses while trying to douse the flames at the stricken reactor — actually died from Chernobyl radiation. Certainly, the death toll was nothing remotely on the scale claimed.

“We have a moral duty,” Monbiot says, “not to spread unnecessary and unfounded fears. If we persuade people that they or their children are likely to suffer from horrible and dangerous health problems, and if these fears are baseless, we cause great distress and anxiety, needlessly damaging the quality of people’s lives.”

Many people have a visceral fear of nuclear power and its invisible radiation. But for environmentalists to fan the flames — especially when it gets in the way of fighting a far more real threat, from climate change — seems reckless, anti-scientific and deeply damaging to the world’s climate future.

One sure result of Germany deciding to abandon nuclear power in the wake of last year’s Fukushima nuclear accident (calamitous, but any death toll will be tiny compared to that from the tsunami that caused it) will be rising carbon emissions from a revived coal industry. By one estimate, the end of nuclear power in Germany will result in an extra 300 million tons of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere between now and 2020 — more than the annual emissions of Italy and Spain combined.

Last, let’s look at the latest source of green angst: shale gas and the drilling technique of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, used to extract it. There are probably good reasons for not developing shale gas in many places. Its extraction can pollute water and cause minor earth tremors, for instance. But at root this is an argument about carbon — a genuinely double-edged issue that needs debating. For there is a good environmental case to be made that shale gas, like nuclear energy, can be part of the solution to climate change. That case should be heard and not shouted down.

Opponents of shale gas rightly say it is a carbon-based fossil fuel. But it is a much less dangerous fossil fuel than coal. Carbon emissions from burning natural gas are roughly half those from burning coal. A switch from coal to shale gas is the main reason why, in 2011, U.S. CO2 emissions fell by almost 2 percent.

Many environmentalists are imbued with a sense of their own exceptionalism and original virtue.

We cannot ignore that. With coal’s share of the world’s energy supply rising from 25 to 30 percent in the past half decade, a good argument can be made that a dash to exploit cheap shale gas and undercut this surge in coal would do more to cut carbon emissions than almost anything else. The noted environmental economist Dieter Helm of the University of Oxford argues just this in a new book, The Carbon Crunch, out this month.

But this is an unpopular argument. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, was pilloried by activists for making the case that gas could be a “bridge fuel” to a low-carbon future. And when he stepped down, his successor condemned him for taking cash from the gas industry to fund the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. Pope was probably wrong to take donations of that type, though some environment groups do such things all the time. But his real crime to those in the green movement seems to have been to side with the gas lobby at all.

Many environmentalists are imbued with a sense of their own exceptionalism and original virtue. But we have been dangerously wrong before. When Rachel Carson’s sound case against the mass application of DDT as an agricultural pesticide morphed into blanket opposition to much smaller indoor applications to fight malaria, it arguably resulted in millions of deaths as the diseases resurged.

And more recently, remember the confusion over biofuels? They were a new green energy source we could all support. I remember, when the biofuels craze began about 2005, I reported on a few voices urging caution. They warned that the huge land take of crops like corn and sugar cane for biofuels might threaten food supplies; that the crops would add to the destruction of rainforests; and that the carbon gains were often small to non-existent. But Friends of the Earth and others trashed them as traitors to the cause of green energy.
Well, today most greens are against most biofuels. Not least Friends of the Earth, which calls them a “big green con.” In fact, we may have swung too far in the other direction, undermining research into second-generation biofuels that could be both land- and carbon-efficient.

We don’t have to be slaves to science. There is plenty of room for raising questions about ethics and priorities that challenge the world view of the average lab grunt. And we should blow the whistle on bad science. But to indulge in hysterical attacks on any new technology that does not excite our prejudices, or to accuse genuine researchers of being part of a global conspiracy, is dishonest and self-defeating.

We environmentalists should learn to be more humble about our policy prescriptions, more willing to hear competing arguments, and less keen to engage in hectoring and bullying.

Forecasting Climate With A Chance Of Backlash (NPR)

by JENNIFER LUDDEN

February 19, 2013 3:14 AM

When it comes to climate change, Americans place great trust in their local TV weathercaster, which has led climate experts to see huge potential for public education.

The only problem? Polls show most weather presenters don’t know much about climate science, and many who do are fearful of talking about something so polarizing.

In fact, if you have heard a weathercaster speak on climate change, it’s likely been to deny it. John Coleman in San Diego and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? are among a group of vocal die-hards, cranking out blog posts and videos countering climate science. But even many meteorologists who don’t think it’s all a hoax still profoundly distrust climate models.

“They get reminded each and every day anytime their models don’t prove to be correct,” says Ed Maibach, who directs the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, and has carried out several surveys of TV weathercasters. “For them, the whole notion of projecting what the climate will be 30, 50, a hundred years from now, they’ve got a fairly high degree of skepticism.”

And yet, Maibach has found that many meteorologists would like to learn more and would like to educate their viewers. A few years back, he hatched a plan and found a willing partner in an unlikely place.

Prepared For Backlash

“I loved it. That’s exactly what I wanted to do,” says Jim Gandy, chief meteorologist at WLTX in Columbia, S.C.

Gandy had actually begun reading up on climate change several years earlier, when — to his surprise — a couple of geology professors at a party asked whether he thought global warming was real. Gandy was disturbed by what he learned and was game to go on air with it, even in what he calls a “dark red” state with a lot of “resistance” to the idea of climate change.

“We talked about it at length,” he says, “and we were prepared for a backlash.”

Researchers at George Mason University, with the help of Climate Central, tracked down information specific to Columbia, something many local meteorologists, with multiple weather reports a day, simply have no time to do. They also created graphics for Gandy to use whenever the local weather gave him a peg. And Gandy’s local TV station gave him something precious: 90 seconds of air time in the evening newscast.

The segment was called “Climate Matters,” and Gandy kicked it off in late July 2010. He dove in deep, packing his limited time with tidbits usually buried in scientific papers. One segment looked at what Columbia’s summer temperatures are projected to be in 40 years. Another explained how scientists can track man-made global warming, since carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has a specific chemical footprint.

Gandy also made the issue personal for viewers, reporting on how climate change will make pollen and poison ivy grow faster and more potent. He says people stopped him on the street about that.

And the backlash? There were a few cranky comments. “To my knowledge,” Gandy says, “there was at least one phone call from someone saying they needed to fire me.” But generally, the series went over well.

Better Informed Viewers

Meanwhile, researcher Ed Maibach polled people before Climate Matters began, then again a year into it. He says compared with viewers of other local stations, those who watched Jim Gandy gained a more scientifically grounded understanding of climate change, from understanding that it’s largely caused by humans, that it’s happening here and now and that it’s harmful.

“All of this is the kind of information that will help people, and help communities, make better decisions about how to adapt to a changing climate,” Maibach says.

Maibach hopes to expand the experiment, eventually making localized climate research and graphs available to meteorologists across the country. And there are other efforts to help weather forecasters become climate educators.

Last March, longtime Minnesota meteorologist Paul Douglas, founder of WeatherNationTV, posted an impassioned letter online urging his fellow Republicans to acknowledge that climate change is real.

“Other meteorologists actually emailed me and said, ‘Thanks for giving voice to something I’ve been thinking but was too afraid to say publicly,’ ” he says.

Douglas is part of a group pushing to tighten certification standards for meteorologists.

“If you’re going to talk about climate science on the air,” he says, you would “need to learn about the real science, and not get it off a talk show radio program or a website.”

After all, both he and Gandy say it’s becoming harder to separate weather from climate. That means TV weathercasters will be busier, and more closely followed, than ever.

Richard A. Muller: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic (N.Y.Times)

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

By RICHARD A. MULLER

Published: July 28, 2012

Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.

Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.

Richard A. Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, is the author, most recently, of “Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines.”

New Research Shows Complexity of Global Warming (Science Daily)

Jan. 30, 2013 — Global warming from greenhouse gases affects rainfall patterns in the world differently than that from solar heating, according to a study by an international team of scientists in the January 31 issue of Nature. Using computer model simulations, the scientists, led by Jian Liu (Chinese Academy of Sciences) and Bin Wang (International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa), showed that global rainfall has increased less over the present-day warming period than during the Medieval Warm Period, even though temperatures are higher today than they were then.

Clouds over the Pacific Ocean. (Credit: Shang-Ping Xie)

The team examined global precipitation changes over the last millennium and future projection to the end of 21st century, comparing natural changes from solar heating and volcanism with changes from human-made greenhouse gas emissions. Using an atmosphere-ocean coupled climate model that simulates realistically both past and present-day climate conditions, the scientists found that for every degree rise in global temperature, the global rainfall rate since the Industrial Revolution has increased less by about 40% than during past warming phases of Earth.

Why does warming from solar heating and from greenhouse gases have such different effects on global precipitation?

“Our climate model simulations show that this difference results from different sea surface temperature patterns. When warming is due to increased greenhouse gases, the gradient of sea surface temperature (SST) across the tropical Pacific weakens, but when it is due to increased solar radiation, the gradient increases. For the same average global surface temperature increase, the weaker SST gradient produces less rainfall, especially over tropical land,” says co-author Bin Wang, professor of meteorology.

But why does warming from greenhouse gases and from solar heating affect the tropical Pacific SST gradient differently?

“Adding long-wave absorbers, that is heat-trapping greenhouse gases, to the atmosphere decreases the usual temperature difference between the surface and the top of the atmosphere, making the atmosphere more stable,” explains lead-author Jian Liu. “The increased atmospheric stability weakens the trade winds, resulting in stronger warming in the eastern than the western Pacific, thus reducing the usual SST gradient — a situation similar to El Niño.”

Solar radiation, on the other hand, heats Earth’s surface, increasing the usual temperature difference between the surface and the top of the atmosphere without weakening the trade winds. The result is that heating warms the western Pacific, while the eastern Pacific remains cool from the usual ocean upwelling.

“While during past global warming from solar heating the steeper tropical east-west SST pattern has won out, we suggest that with future warming from greenhouse gases, the weaker gradient and smaller increase in yearly rainfall rate will win out,” concludes Wang.

Journal Reference:

  1. Jian Liu, Bin Wang, Mark A. Cane, So-Young Yim, June-Yi Lee. Divergent global precipitation changes induced by natural versus anthropogenic forcingNature, 2013; 493 (7434): 656 DOI: 10.1038/nature11784

Understanding the Historical Probability of Drought (Science Daily)

Jan. 30, 2013 — Droughts can severely limit crop growth, causing yearly losses of around $8 billion in the United States. But it may be possible to minimize those losses if farmers can synchronize the growth of crops with periods of time when drought is less likely to occur. Researchers from Oklahoma State University are working to create a reliable “calendar” of seasonal drought patterns that could help farmers optimize crop production by avoiding days prone to drought.

Historical probabilities of drought, which can point to days on which crop water stress is likely, are often calculated using atmospheric data such as rainfall and temperatures. However, those measurements do not consider the soil properties of individual fields or sites.

“Atmospheric variables do not take into account soil moisture,” explains Tyson Ochsner, lead author of the study. “And soil moisture can provide an important buffer against short-term precipitation deficits.”

In an attempt to more accurately assess drought probabilities, Ochsner and co-authors, Guilherme Torres and Romulo Lollato, used 15 years of soil moisture measurements from eight locations across Oklahoma to calculate soil water deficits and determine the days on which dry conditions would be likely. Results of the study, which began as a student-led class research project, were published online Jan. 29 inAgronomy Journal. The researchers found that soil water deficits more successfully identified periods during which plants were likely to be water stressed than did traditional atmospheric measurements when used as proposed by previous research.

Soil water deficit is defined in the study as the difference between the capacity of the soil to hold water and the actual water content calculated from long-term soil moisture measurements. Researchers then compared that soil water deficit to a threshold at which plants would experience water stress and, therefore, drought conditions. The threshold was determined for each study site since available water, a factor used to calculate threshold, is affected by specific soil characteristics.

“The soil water contents differ across sites and depths depending on the sand, silt, and clay contents,” says Ochsner. “Readily available water is a site- and depth-specific parameter.”

Upon calculating soil water deficits and stress thresholds for the study sites, the research team compared their assessment of drought probability to assessments made using atmospheric data. They found that a previously developed method using atmospheric data often underestimated drought conditions, while soil water deficits measurements more accurately and consistently assessed drought probabilities. Therefore, the researchers suggest that soil water data be used whenever it is available to create a picture of the days on which drought conditions are likely.

If soil measurements are not available, however, the researchers recommend that the calculations used for atmospheric assessments be reconfigured to be more accurate. The authors made two such changes in their study. First, they decreased the threshold at which plants were deemed stressed, thus allowing a smaller deficit to be considered a drought condition. They also increased the number of days over which atmospheric deficits were summed. Those two changes provided estimates that better agreed with soil water deficit probabilities.

Further research is needed, says Ochsner, to optimize atmospheric calculations and provide accurate estimations for those without soil water data. “We are in a time of rapid increase in the availability of soil moisture data, but many users will still have to rely on the atmospheric water deficit method for locations where soil moisture data are insufficient.”

Regardless of the method used, Ochsner and his team hope that their research will help farmers better plan the cultivation of their crops and avoid costly losses to drought conditions.

Journal Reference:

  1. Guilherme M. Torres, Romulo P. Lollato, Tyson E. Ochsner.Comparison of Drought Probability Assessments Based on Atmospheric Water Deficit and Soil Water Deficit.Agronomy Journal, 2013; DOI: 10.2134/agronj2012.0295

U.S. Water Supply Not as Threatened as Believed, Study Finds (Science Daily)

Jan. 30, 2013 — Although reports of drought conditions, water wars and restrictions have often painted a bleak picture of the nation’s water availability, a new University of Florida survey finds that conditions aren’t quite so bad as believed.

Jim Jawitz, a UF soil and water science professor, and Julie Padowski, who earned her doctoral degree from UF and is now a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford University, knew that previous assessments of urban water supplies typically used what is known as a “runoff-based approach,” which takes into account factors such as river flows and rainfall amounts.

Jawitz and Padowski knew that those assessments did not consider the infrastructure used to maintain urban water supplies, such as water stored in aquifers, lakes, reservoirs or water that’s pumped in to an area and stored. So for 225 U.S. metropolitan areas with populations of more than 100,000, that’s what they did, and their findings have been published online by the journal Water Resources Research.

When assessing cities using the runoff-based approach, the UF study found that 47 percent of the total U.S. population is vulnerable to water scarcity issues, however, when infrastructure was accounted for, the number dropped to just 17 percent of the population. Residents in the top 225 metropolitan areas make up the bulk of the U.S. population.

Jawitz, a faculty member with UF’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, said they expected to find fewer areas vulnerable to water shortages than past studies had because of the different methodology, but some of their findings surprised them.

“We have people who live in the desert and they have water and it’s because of their infrastructure. If you live in a city that has a large of reservoir of water stored and there’s a drought, it doesn’t have the same effect on you as if you live in a city where there’s a drought and you don’t have a large reservoir,” he said.

They didn’t expect Atlanta — where legal battles over water rights with neighboring states initially prompted the researchers to tackle the survey — to fall near the middle among the 225 cities they studied for water access and vulnerability.

Another unusual finding: Miami, with its lush, tropical landscape, landing in the top 10 most vulnerable cities. Jawitz, a South Florida native, said although the Miami area generally enjoys an abundance of rain, it’s not stored anywhere. That means during periods of drought, the area becomes vulnerable.

A website that ranks the 225 largest U.S. urban areas based on water availability and vulnerability can be found at soils.ifas.ufl.edu/hydrology/cities. The list is a combination of results of where each city falls on a 0-to-100 water-accessibility scale as well as a water-vulnerability rating of low, medium or high.

The researchers also had a modern twist to their study. Padowski created a media-text analysis to search online news archives for reports for each city, looking for stories about water restrictions or drought conditions.

They found that the media reports backed up their method of analysis but did not correlate significantly with estimates made using the runoff-based approach.

Padowski said despite the good news about water, she fully expects water conservation should and will be a front-and-center topic for many years to come.

“As population growth increases, we don’t have more resources to tap — we can’t just find another lake or another river to dam,” she said. “It’s going to come down to sharing, conservation and efficiency.”

Rob McDonald, senior scientist for sustainable land use with The Nature Conservancy, said the study adds to what scientists know about urban water use in the U.S. and raises intriguing questions about whether large cities’ infrastructure will be ready for conditions brought on by climate change.

“To me, it shows that infrastructure matters,” he said. “Do cities go out even further for water? If a city is dependent on snow melts from the mountains for its water, what happens if it gets warm enough that there isn’t a snowpack?”

The study was funded by the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station and the Adaptive Management of Water, Wetlands, and Watersheds IGERT program.

Make climate change a priority (Washington Post)

Graphic: A new report prepared for the World Bank finds that the planet is on a path to warming 4 degrees by the end of the century, with devastating consequences. Click on the infographic to go to the World Bank for more information.

By Jim Yong Kim, Published: January 24

Jim Yong Kim is president of the World Bank.

The weather in Washington has been like a roller coaster this January. Yes, there has been a deep freeze this week, but it was the sudden warmth earlier in the month that was truly alarming. Flocks of birds — robins, wrens, cardinals and even blue jays – swarmed bushes with berries, eating as much as they could. Runners and bikers wore shorts and T-shirts. People worked in their gardens as if it were spring.

The signs of global warming are becoming more obvious and more frequent. A glut of extreme weather conditions is appearing globally. And the average temperature in the United States last year was the highest ever recorded.

As economic leaders gathered in Davos this week for the World Economic Forum, much of the conversation was about finances. But climate change should also be at the top of our agendas, because global warming imperils all of the development gains we have made.If there is no action soon, the future will become bleak. The World Bank Groupreleased a reportin November that concluded that the world could warm by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) by the end of this century if concerted action is not taken now.

A world that warm means seas would rise 1.5 to 3 feet, putting at risk hundreds of millions of city dwellers globally. It would mean that storms once dubbed “once in a century” would become common, perhaps occurring every year. And it would mean that much of the United States, from Los Angeles to Kansas to the nation’s capital, would feel like an unbearable oven in the summer.

My wife and I have two sons, ages 12 and 3. When they grow old, this could be the world they inherit. That thought alone makes me want to be part of a global movement that acts now.

Even as global climate negotiations continue, there is a need for urgent action outside the conventions. People everywhere must focus on where we will get the most impact to reduce emissions and build resilience in cities, communities and countries.

Strong leadership must come from the six big economies that account for two-thirds of the energy sector’s global carbon dioxide emissions. President Obama’s reference in his inaugural address this week to addressing climate and energy could help reignite this critical conversation domestically and abroad.

The world’s top priority must be to get finance flowing and get prices right on all aspects of energy costs to support low-carbon growth. Achieving a predictable price on carbon that accurately reflects real environmental costs is key to delivering emission reductions at scale. Correct energy pricing can also provide incentives for investments in energy efficiency and cleaner energy technologies.

A second immediate step is to end harmful fuel subsidies globally, which could lead to a 5 percent fall in emissions by 2020. Countries spend more than $500 billion annually in fossil-fuel subsidies and an additional $500 billion in other subsidies, often related to agriculture and water, that are, ultimately, environmentally harmful. That trillion dollars could be put to better use for the jobs of the future, social safety nets or vaccines.

A third focus is on cities. The largest 100 cities that contribute 67 percent of energy-related emissions are both the center of innovation for green growth and the most vulnerable to climate change. We have seen great leadership, for example, in New York and Rio de Janeiro on low-carbon growth and tackling practices that fuel climate change.

At the World Bank Group, through the $7 billion-plus Climate Investment Funds, we are managing forests, spreading solar energy and promoting green expansion for cities, all with a goal of stopping global warming. We also are in the midst of a major reexamination of our own practices and policies.

Just as the Bretton Woods institutions were created to prevent a third world war, the world needs a bold global approach to help avoid the climate catastrophe it faces today. The World Bank Group is ready to work with others to meet this challenge. With every investment we make and every action we take, we should have in mind the threat of an even warmer world and the opportunity of inclusive green growth.

After the hottest year on record in the United States, a year in which Hurricane Sandycaused billions of dollars in damagerecord droughts scorched farmland in the Midwest and our organization reported that the planet could become more than 7 degrees warmer, what are we waiting for? We need to get serious fast. The planet, our home, can’t wait.

Climate Change Beliefs of Independent Voters Shift With the Weather (Science Daily)

Jan. 24, 2013 — There’s a well-known saying in New England that if you don’t like the weather here, wait a minute. When it comes to independent voters, those weather changes can just as quickly shift beliefs about climate change.

Predicted probability of “climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities” response as a function of temperature anomaly and political party. (Credit: Lawrence Hamilton and Mary Stampone/UNH)

New research from the University of New Hampshire finds that the climate change beliefs of independent voters are dramatically swayed by short-term weather conditions. The research was conducted by Lawrence Hamilton, professor of sociology and senior fellow at the Carsey Institute, and Mary Stampone, assistant professor of geography and the New Hampshire state climatologist.

“We find that over 10 surveys, Republicans and Democrats remain far apart and firm in their beliefs about climate change. Independents fall in between these extremes, but their beliefs appear weakly held — literally blowing in the wind. Interviewed on unseasonably warm days, independents tend to agree with the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. On unseasonably cool days, they tend not to,” Hamilton and Stampone say.

Hamilton and Stampone used statewide data from about 5,000 random-sample telephone interviews conducted on 99 days over two and a half years (2010 to 2012) by the Granite State Poll. They combined the survey data with temperature and precipitation indicators derived from New Hampshire’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) station records. Survey respondents were asked whether they thought climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities. Alternatively, respondents could state that climate change is not happening, or that it is happening but mainly for natural reasons.

Unseasonably warm or cool temperatures on the interview day and previous day seemed to shift the odds of respondents believing that humans are changing the climate. However, when researchers broke these responses down by political affiliation (Democrat, Republican or independent), they found that temperature had a substantial effect on climate change views mainly among independent voters.

“Independent voters were less likely to believe that climate change was caused by humans on unseasonably cool days and more likely to believe that climate change was caused by humans on unseasonably warm days. The shift was dramatic. On the coolest days, belief in human-caused climate change dropped below 40 percent among independents. On the hottest days, it increased above 70 percent,” Hamilton says.

New Hampshire’s self-identified independents generally resemble their counterparts on a nationwide survey that asked the same questions, according to the researchers. Independents comprise 18 percent of the New Hampshire estimation sample, compared with 17 percent nationally. They are similar with respect to education, but slightly older, and more balanced with respect to gender.

In conducting their analysis, the researchers took into account other factors such as education, age, and sex. They also made adjustments for the seasons, and for random variation between surveys that might be caused by nontemperature events.

Journal Reference:

  1. Lawrence C. Hamilton, Mary D. Stampone. Blowin’ in the wind: Short-term weather and belief in anthropogenic climate changeWeather, Climate, and Society, 2013; : 130123150419007 DOI: 10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00048.1

Global Warming Has Increased Monthly Heat Records Worldwide by a Factor of Five, Study Finds (Science Daily)

Jan. 14, 2013 — Monthly temperature extremes have become much more frequent, as measurements from around the world indicate. On average, there are now five times as many record-breaking hot months worldwide than could be expected without long-term global warming, shows a study now published in Climatic Change. In parts of Europe, Africa and southern Asia the number of monthly records has increased even by a factor of ten. 80 percent of observed monthly records would not have occurred without human influence on climate, concludes the authors-team of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Complutense University of Madrid.

Record-breaking hot months have become much more frequent. (Credit: PIK)

“The last decade brought unprecedented heat waves; for instance in the US in 2012, in Russia in 2010, in Australia in 2009, and in Europe in 2003,” lead-author Dim Coumou says. “Heat extremes are causing many deaths, major forest fires, and harvest losses — societies and ecosystems are not adapted to ever new record-breaking temperatures.” The new study relies on 131 years of monthly temperature data for more than 12,000 grid points around the world, provided by NASA. Comprehensive analysis reveals the increase in records.

The researchers developed a robust statistical model that explains the surge in the number of records to be a consequence of the long-term global warming trend. That surge has been particularly steep over the last 40 years, due to a steep global-warming trend over this period. Superimposed on this long-term rise, the data show the effect of natural variability, with especially high numbers of heat records during years with El Niño events. This natural variability, however, does not explain the overall development of record events, found the researchers.

Natural variability does not explain the overall development of record events

If global warming continues, the study projects that the number of new monthly records will be 12 times as high in 30 years as it would be without climate change. “Now this doesn’t mean there will be 12 times more hot summers in Europe than today — it actually is worse,” Coumou points out. For the new records set in the 2040s will not just be hot by today’s standards. “To count as new records, they actually have to beat heat records set in the 2020s and 2030s, which will already be hotter than anything we have experienced to date,” explains Coumou. “And this is just the global average — in some continental regions, the increase in new records will be even greater.”

“Statistics alone cannot tell us what the cause of any single heat wave is, but they show a large and systematic increase in the number of heat records due to global warming,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, a co-author of the study and co-chair of PIK’s research domain Earth System Analysis. “Today, this increase is already so large that by far most monthly heat records are due to climate change. The science is clear that only a small fraction would have occurred naturally.”

Journal Reference:

  1. Dim Coumou, Alexander Robinson, Stefan Rahmstorf.Global increase in record-breaking monthly-mean temperaturesClimatic Change, 2013; DOI:10.1007/s10584-012-0668-1

Severe Climate Jeopardizing Amazon Forest, Study Finds (Science Daily)

Jan. 18, 2013 — An area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of California continues to suffer from the effects of a megadrought that began in 2005, finds a new NASA-led study. These results, together with observed recurrences of droughts every few years and associated damage to the forests in southern and western Amazonia in the past decade, suggest these rainforests may be showing the first signs of potential large-scale degradation due to climate change.

At left, the extent of the 2005 megadrought in the western Amazon rainforests during the summer months of June, July and August as measured by NASA satellites. The most impacted areas are shown in shades of red and yellow. The circled area in the right panel shows the extent of the forests that experienced slow recovery from the 2005 drought, with areas in red and yellow shades experiencing the slowest recovery. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/GSFC)

An international research team led by Sassan Saatchi of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., analyzed more than a decade of satellite microwave radar data collected between 2000 and 2009 over Amazonia. The observations included measurements of rainfall from NASA’s Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission and measurements of the moisture content and structure of the forest canopy (top layer) from the Seawinds scatterometer on NASA’s QuikScat spacecraft.

The scientists found that during the summer of 2005, more than 270,000 square miles (700,000 square kilometers, or 70 million hectares) of pristine, old-growth forest in southwestern Amazonia experienced an extensive, severe drought. This megadrought caused widespread changes to the forest canopy that were detectable by satellite. The changes suggest dieback of branches and tree falls, especially among the older, larger, more vulnerable canopy trees that blanket the forest.

While rainfall levels gradually recovered in subsequent years, the damage to the forest canopy persisted all the way to the next major drought, which began in 2010. About half the forest affected by the 2005 drought — an area the size of California — did not recover by the time QuikScat stopped gathering global data in November 2009 and before the start of a more extensive drought in 2010.

“The biggest surprise for us was that the effects appeared to persist for years after the 2005 drought,” said study co-author Yadvinder Malhi of the University of Oxford, United Kingdom. “We had expected the forest canopy to bounce back after a year with a new flush of leaf growth, but the damage appeared to persist right up to the subsequent drought in 2010.”

Recent Amazonian droughts have drawn attention to the vulnerability of tropical forests to climate change. Satellite and ground data have shown an increase in wildfires during drought years and tree die-offs following severe droughts. Until now, there had been no satellite-based assessment of the multi-year impacts of these droughts across all of Amazonia. Large-scale droughts can lead to sustained releases of carbon dioxide from decaying wood, affecting ecosystems and Earth’s carbon cycle.

The researchers attribute the 2005 Amazonian drought to the long-term warming of tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures. “In effect, the same climate phenomenon that helped form hurricanes Katrina and Rita along U.S. southern coasts in 2005 also likely caused the severe drought in southwest Amazonia,” Saatchi said. “An extreme climate event caused the drought, which subsequently damaged the Amazonian trees.”

Saatchi said such megadroughts can have long-lasting effects on rainforest ecosystems. “Our results suggest that if droughts continue at five- to 10-year intervals or increase in frequency due to climate change, large areas of the Amazon forest are likely to be exposed to persistent effects of droughts and corresponding slow forest recovery,” he said. “This may alter the structure and function of Amazonian rainforest ecosystems.”

The team found that the area affected by the 2005 drought was much larger than scientists had previously predicted. About 30 percent (656,370 square miles, or 1.7 million square kilometers) of the Amazon basin’s total current forest area was affected, with more than five percent of the forest experiencing severe drought conditions. The 2010 drought affected nearly half of the entire Amazon forest, with nearly a fifth of it experiencing severe drought. More than 231,660 square miles (600,000 square kilometers) of the area affected by the 2005 drought were also affected by the 2010 drought. This “double whammy” by successive droughts suggests a potentially long-lasting and widespread effect on forests in southern and western Amazonia.

The drought rate in Amazonia during the past decade is unprecedented over the past century. In addition to the two major droughts in 2005 and 2010, the area has experienced several localized mini-droughts in recent years. Observations from ground stations show that rainfall over the southern Amazon rainforest declined by almost 3.2 percent per year in the period from 1970 to 1998. Climate analyses for the period from 1995 to 2005 show a steady decline in water availability for plants in the region. Together, these data suggest a decade of moderate water stress led up to the 2005 drought, helping trigger the large-scale forest damage seen following the 2005 drought.

Saatchi said the new study sheds new light on a major controversy that existed about how the Amazon forest responded following the 2005 megadrought. Previous studies using conventional optical satellite data produced contradictory results, likely due to the difficulty of correcting the optical data for interference by clouds and other atmospheric conditions.

In contrast, QuikScat’s scatterometer radar was able to see through the clouds and penetrate into the top few meters of vegetation, providing daily measurements of the forest canopy structure and estimates of how much water the forest contains. Areas of drought-damaged forest produced a lower radar signal than the signals collected over healthy forest areas, indicating either that the forest canopy is drier or it is less “rough” due to damage to or the death of canopy trees.

Results of the study were published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Other participating institutions included UCLA; University of Oxford, United Kingdom; University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom; National Institute for Space Research, Sao Jose dos Campos, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Boston University, Mass.; and NASA’s Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

For more on NASA’s scatterometry missions, visit:http://winds.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm . You can follow JPL News on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/nasajpl and on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/nasajpl . The California Institute of Technology in Pasadena manages JPL for NASA.

New Insights On Drought Predictions in East Africa (Science Daily)

Jan. 18, 2013 — With more than 40 million people living under exceptional drought conditions in East Africa, the ability to make accurate predictions of drought has never been more important. In the aftermath of widespread famine and a humanitarian crisis caused by the 2010-2011 drought in the Horn of Africa — possibly the worst drought in 60 years — researchers are striving to determine whether drying trends will continue.

Climate model simulations analyzed as part of the study revealed that the relationship between sea surface temperatures and atmospheric convection in the Indian Ocean changes rainfall in East Africa. Specifically, wet conditions in coastal East Africa are associated with cool sea surface temperatures in the eastern Indian Ocean and warm sea surface temperatures in the western Indian Ocean, which cause ascending atmospheric circulation over East Africa and enhanced rainfall. The opposite situation—cold sea surface temperatures in the western Indian Ocean and warmer in the East—causes drought. Such variations in sea-surface temperatures likely caused the historical fluctuations in rainfall seen in the paleorecord. (Credit: Courtesy Jessica Tierney, et al, 2013)

While it is clear that El Niño can affect precipitation in this region of East Africa, very little is known about the drivers of long-term shifts in rainfall. However, new research described in the journal Nature helps explain the mechanisms at work behind historical patterns of aridity in Eastern Africa over many decades, and the findings may help improve future predictions of drought and food security in the region.

“The problem is, instrumental records of temperature and rainfall, especially in East Africa, don’t go far enough in time to study climate variability over decades or more, since they are generally limited to the 20th century,” explains first author Jessica Tierney, a geologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). Tierney and her colleagues at WHOI and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University used what is known as the paleoclimate record, which provides information on climate in the geologic past, to study East African climate change over a span of 700 years.

The paleoclimate record in East Africa consists of indicators of moisture balance — including pollen, water isotopes, charcoal, and evidence for run-off events — measured in lake sediment cores. Tierney and her colleagues synthesized these data, revealing a clear pattern wherein the easternmost sector of East Africa was relatively dry in medieval times (from 1300 to 1400 a.d.), wet during the “Little Ice Age” from approximately 1600 to 1800 a.d., and then drier again toward the present time.

Climate model simulations analyzed as part of the study revealed that the relationship between sea surface temperatures and atmospheric convection in the Indian Ocean changes rainfall in East Africa. Specifically, wet conditions in coastal East Africa are associated with cool sea surface temperatures in the eastern Indian Ocean and warm sea surface temperatures in the western Indian Ocean, which cause ascending atmospheric circulation over East Africa and enhanced rainfall. The opposite situation — cold sea surface temperatures in the western Indian Ocean and warmer in the East — causes drought. Such variations in sea-surface temperatures likely caused the historical fluctuations in rainfall seen in the paleorecord.

The central role of the Indian Ocean in long-term climate change in the region was a surprise. “While the Indian Ocean has long been thought of as a ‘little brother’ to the Pacific, it is clear that it is in charge when it comes to these decades-long changes in precipitation in East Africa,” says Tierney.

Many questions remain, though. “We still don’t understand exactly what causes the changes in sea surface temperatures in the Indian Ocean and the relationship between those changes and global changes in climate, like the cooling that occurred during the Little Ice Age or the global warming that is occurring now,” says Tierney. “We’ll need to do some more experiments with climate models to understand that better.”

In the past decade, the easternmost region of Africa has gotten drier, yet general circulation climate models predict that the region will become wetter in response to global warming. “Given the geopolitical significance of the region, it is very important to understand whether drying trends will continue, in which case the models will need to be revised, or if the models will eventually prove correct in their projections of increased precipitation in East Africa,” says co-author Jason Smerdon, of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

While it’s currently unclear which theory is correct, the discovery of the importance of the Indian Ocean may help solve the mystery. “In terms of forecasting long-term patterns in drought and food security, we would recommend that researchers make use of patterns of sea surface temperature changes in the Indian Ocean rather than just looking at the shorter term El Niño events or the Pacific Ocean,” says Tierney.

In addition, Tierney and her colleagues lack paleoclimate data from the region that is most directly affected by the Indian Ocean — the Horn of Africa. The paleoclimate data featured in this study are limited to more equatorial and interior regions of East Africa. With support from National Science Foundation, Tierney and her colleagues are now developing a new record of both aridity and sea surface temperatures from the Gulf of Aden, at a site close to the Horn.

“This will give us the best picture of what’s happened to climate in the Horn, and in fact, it will be the first record of paleoclimate in the Horn that covers the last few millennia in detail. We’re working on those analyses now and should have results in the next year or so,” says Tierney.

This research was based on work supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Journal Reference:

  1. Jessica E. Tierney, Jason E. Smerdon, Kevin J. Anchukaitis, Richard Seager. Multidecadal variability in East African hydroclimate controlled by the Indian OceanNature, 2013; 493 (7432): 389 DOI:10.1038/nature11785

Cacique Cobra Coral rompe parceria com a prefeitura (O Globo)

Governo teria deixado de entregar, nos prazos previstos, relatórios com um balanço dos investimentos em prevenção realizados ano passado na cidade

O GLOBO

Publicado:14/01/13 – 0h08

RIO — Em pleno verão carioca, o sistema de alerta e prevenção a enchentes do Rio perdeu um colaborador incomum. O porta-voz da Fundação Cacique Cobra Coral, Osmar Santos, anunciou no domingo que rompeu o convênio técnico-científico que mantinha com a prefeitura do Rio. O motivo é que a prefeitura deixou de entregar, nos prazos previstos, relatórios com um balanço dos investimentos em prevenção realizados ano passado na cidade. A ONG é comandada pela médium Adelaide Scritori, que afirma ter o poder de controlar o tempo. Desde a administração do ex-prefeito Cesar Maia, Adelaide esteve à disposição para prestar assistência espiritual a fim de tentar reduzir os estragos causados por temporais. Em janeiro de 2009, a prefeitura chegou a anunciar o fim da parceria, mas voltou atrás após uma forte chuva.

— Alguém da burocracia muito atarefado esqueceu da gente. Mas, caso a prefeitura queira continuar a receber nossa consultoria, que é gratuita, estamos à disposição — disse Osmar Santos.

Leia mais sobre esse assunto em http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/cacique-cobra-coral-rompe-parceria-com-prefeitura-7285402#ixzz2Il9blV38 © 1996 – 2013. Todos direitos reservados a Infoglobo Comunicação e Participações S.A. Este material não pode ser publicado, transmitido por broadcast, reescrito ou redistribuído sem autorização.

Medo e tensão no Oeste (Rolling Stone)

Edição 49 – Outubro de 2010

Paraíso perdido na Amazônia, a região de Nova Olinda vive em conflito: de um lado, comunidades a favor da extração da madeira; de outro, aquelas que querem manter suas terras. O impasse continua

Medo e tensão no Oeste

Foto: GREENPEACE

por POR FELIPE MILANEZ

O excesso de céu e águas que se abre à minha frente a partir da proa do barco é deslumbrante. A floresta é uma linha verdejante suave no horizonte, que marca a distinção entre o azul cósmico e o azul mais escuro do rio. Nas margens, praias com areias brancas. Dinael Cardoso, liderança indígena e uma das personalidades mais ativas no Movimento, me acompanha. Chegando a uma pequena comunidade estendida na beira do rio Arapiuns, ele aponta para uma dessas margens paradisíacas, que poderiam estar no Caribe, escoltadas pelo verde da mata: “Foi ali, ano passado. Vai fazer um ano agora que as balsas queimaram”.

É apenas uma ponta de areia, chamada São Pedro, que marca uma confluência. A partir daqui, cada vez mais o Arapiuns, afluente do Tapajós, se fecha, até culminar em uma bifurcação. De um lado, o Maró. Do outro, o Aruã. Essa terra em frente, para onde sigo, se chama Gleba Nova Olinda. O fogo de um ano antes selou a ligação política entre a insurgência presente na Nova Olinda e as comunidades ribeirinhas ao longo do Arapiuns, criando o Movimento em Defesa da Vida e da Cultura do Rio Arapiuns. Em oposição estariam os empresários que comercializam madeira da região, as comunidades que são ligadas a esses empresários e os agentes econômicos com interesse mais amplo: a mineradora Alcoa, que explora bauxita e faz prospecção em toda a área, e os produtores de soja.

Não apenas pelo significado político, mas também pela dimensão social de unir as comunidades, o protesto e o fogo rebelde em balsas carregadas de madeira marcou definitivamente essa curva do Arapiuns.

O fogo explodiu em chamas gigantes pelo meio do rio, de um tamanho nunca antes visto, em um calor nunca antes sentido. As labaredas invadiram o breu, seguiram o outro dia e queimaram por mais duas noites. As comunidades da beira do rio estavam unidas na revolta.

O sindicato dos trabalhadores rurais, que convocou a manifestação, havia abandonado a luta. O Procurador Federal declarou que havia indícios de extração irregular da madeira. A Secretaria de Meio Ambiente (Sema) veio fiscalizar a origem das toras e disse que tudo era legal e dentro dos conformes. Ou seja, a madeira continuaria saindo. “Sendo saqueada”, pensaram as lideranças que estavam no local. Não houve ordem de ninguém para dar início ao fogo, mas uma reação coletiva, em assembleias. “O motivador maior da queima foi a conivência do Estado com a exploração madeireira. O Estado não quis discutir com as comunidades, mandou apenas um técnico para fiscalizar. Isso revoltou os manifestantes, que esperaram por um mês”, afirmou uma liderança que não quis ser identificada.

Quase um ano atrás, no dia 10 de novembro, cansada de uma manifestação que já durava um mês, a multidão queimou duas balsas carregadas de madeira, avaliadas em R$ 5 milhões. Se a região vivia tempos de medo e tensão, o ato tornou-se um divisor, o momento em que as comunidades que lutam contra os empresários perceberam que poderiam se insurgir.

Neste último ano, sem a demarcação da terra indígena pretendida pelos índios borari, sem a regularização dos assentamentos das comunidades ribeirinhas, mas com as autorizações de corte de madeira na área e o patrimônio florestal sendo assim comercializado, o ambiente na Gleba Nova Olinda está tomado de medo e tensão.

“O medo sempre existiu. Mas eu não fiquei com medo de abandonar a luta. Fiquei com mais vontade de lutar”, diz Odair José Alves de Sousa, o Dadá, 28 anos, segundo cacique da aldeia borari Novo Lugar (o primeiro cacique é seu tio Higino, mais velho e experiente). À noite, a água do rio é ainda mais escura. Reflete as estrelas tão nitidamente que a sensação é a de que o barco levita. A aldeia Novo Lugar dorme na terra firme onde atracamos. Há calma no ar. Nessa hora, Dadá pode ficar tranquilo para conversar. Em 2007 ele foi sequestrado e espancado. Desde então faz parte do programa de proteção à testemunha e anda com seguranças. Mas, depois que surgiu o Movimento, a confiança na capacidade de luta aumentou. “O movimento está forte. Nossa luta é justa”, afirma.

Antes do episódio do fogo, escorriam semanalmente pelo Arapiuns cerca de 40 balsas carregadas de toras. Cada uma com uma média de dois mil metros cúbicos de madeira. Agora, diz Dadá, se passarem três balsas por mês é muito. Foi o fogo? “Questão de amedrontamento”, analisa o jovem cacique. O fogo transferiu, ao menos em parte, o medo para o “outro lado”. “A gente está falando no canal de rádio que não tem hora nem momento para ter outra manifestação, para pegar outra balsa. Então eles reduziram a quantidade”, explica. O foco da pressão é a empacada regularização fundiária da Gleba, estacionada em gabinetes e negociada entre audiências públicas e lobbies políticos.

Nova Olinda se divide em duas posições antagônicas. Para entrar na Gleba, é preciso estar de um lado. “A gente vai ter que discutir com a comunidade.” Minha recepção na aldeia Novo Lugar é permeada de desconfiança. Poucas semanas antes, eles haviam recebido uma jornalista que se mostrou envolvida com o tal “outro lado”. Para ter acesso, era preciso explicar que minha presença não implicava em vínculos diretos com o “lado de lá”, os empresários madeireiros, identificados pelo apoio que recebem de comunidades como Fé em Deus, Repartimento e Vista Alegre. Em todas as outras comunidades, o procedimento de abordagem foi o mesmo. Como iniciei a viagem pelo lado da resistência aos empresários, que se encontrava antes pela logística do rio, as comunidades opostas fecharam as portas.

Um daqueles paraísos perdidos na Amazônia, lugar de floresta altamente preservada, onde um sonho de éden ainda parece persistir, a região de Nova Olinda é banhada por rios de águas escuras, que escorrem de forma sinuosa, de difícil acesso, praticamente isolando a área na seca do acesso de barcos maiores – com o rio cheio, leva-se pelo menos um dia para se chegar de barco até Santarém, percurso feito em semanas nas canoas tradicionais.

Com 182 mil hectares, a Gleba integra um mosaico de terras, no Oeste do Pará, parte em Santarém e outra em Juriti, que está em lento processo de regularização fundiária: o conjunto de glebas Mamuru-Arapiuns, com 1,2 milhão de hectares. Seria a primeira de cinco glebas de terras públicas nessa região a ter o problema de destinação do uso resolvido – para exploração, preservação ou uso tradicional. O processo, assim que concluído, poderia servir de modelo de resolução para as demais terras. Algumas áreas de assentamento já foram regularizadas. Falta definir a situação dos assentamentos de duas comunidades, Prainha e Vista Alegre, e a demarcação da terra indígena. A conclusão estacionou, e a tensão cresceu.

Há cerca de 15 comunidades na área. Pela lei, elas devem ser ouvidas sobre sua ocupação e o uso que fazem da terra, e as necessidades devem ser respeitadas na hora da concessão do título, seja na forma de projeto de assentamento, que pode ser coletivo ou em lotes individuais, seja na forma de uma reserva indígena. Mas as interferências externas, ou seja, dos novos migrantes, mudaram a relação pacífica que existia entre as comunidades, que hoje não se comunicam.

Seria natural imaginar que todas demandariam direitos semelhantes. Mas há aquelas que querem a presença dos empresários, e as que refutam. Permeada por essa disputa, surge uma batalha por identidades: para marcar suas diferenças e posições políticas assumem cada uma suas raízes. A grande batalha acontece entre as que reivindicam a identidade indígena, do povo Borari, e aquelas que querem se ver brasileiras e modernas.

Foram os gaúchos (termo genérico para forasteiros) que trouxeram o sonho do progresso e os conflitos. Empresários madeireiros transferidos pelo governo do Pará, eles ocupavam uma área pública que havia sido transformada em terra indígena de ocupação dos índios caiapós no Sul do Estado. O governo paraense decidiu, à época, fazer uma espécie de permuta com os empresários, transferindo-os para outra área administrada pelo Instituto de Terras do Pará (Iterpa). Com a transferência dos títulos, veio junto a grilagem da terra. A partir de 2002, começaram a surgir “laranjas” e milhares de novos madeireiros permutados. Na floresta, cortes de lotes sobrepunham-se, enquanto as populações locais observavam tudo cada vez mais esmagadas nas margens.

Para as comunidades a favor da chegada dos madeireiros, da pesquisa mineral de bauxita ou da instalação da agricultura mecanizada de soja, deixar a vida dura da exclusão em que vivem tornou-se um objetivo urgente. Ainda que tenham se dividido entre grupos que passaram a apoiar a entrada dos empresários, recebendo benfeitorias para isso, e os que os enfrentaram, recebendo ameaças, mas mantendo o sonho da autonomia. A comunidade Repartimento, no rio Aruã, foi a primeira a ceder. No rio Maró, o povoado de Fé em Deus tomou a frente, liderado por Manoel Benezildo Sousa, que passou a agrupar lideranças com ações financiadas pelos empresários. Os benefícios imediatos como um gerador mais potente, alguns salários e alguns empregos na extração da madeira, são de grande importância para quem vive na área. Mas podem ser considerados baixos se comparados ao valor em potencial das terras que estão em jogo. A contrapartida exigida para a chegada do progresso é a demanda por terras menores no processo fundiário em curso.

Contrárias aos madeireiros, as outras comunidades se organizaram com o sindicato dos trabalhadores rurais e os movimentos sociais da região. Decidiram lutar para garantir a terra de uso tradicional. Pelo menos, a maior fatia possível do bolo que estava sendo dividido. Esse é o lado do chamado Movimento no conflito instaurado na Nova Olinda.

Em uma terça-feira pela manhã, estive em Fé em Deus, para conhecer as reivindicações, demandas e os benefícios que têm sido distribuídos. Chovia, ventava, e o dia tinha um aspecto antipático. Eu havia sido informado de que poderia não ser recebido quando o barco que faz a linha de transporte até Santarém, o Crê em Deus, que levava as lideranças aliadas aos madeireiros para uma audiência pública na cidade, atracou junto ao que eu estava para me avisar: a minha presença na área não estava autorizada.

Não souberam informar do que se tratava a audiência pública para a qual haviam sido convocados – no caso, era para discutir a situação ambiental de um porto construído em Santarém, pela Cargill, para o escoamento da soja. Mas o transporte era pago.

Chegando em Fé em Deus, percebi um clima de tensão. Pessoas assustadas, conversas em voz baixa sobre a presença do forasteiro, olhares preocupados. Até que jovens líderes vieram informar que não seria realmente possível o diálogo na ausência de Benezildo de Souza e outras lideranças políticas. No pátio da escola vi tremularem bandeirinhas coloridas que anunciam a festa junina, marcada para o sábado seguinte. A comunidade borari Novo Lugar não vai ser convidada. Na festa deles tampouco alguém de Fé em Deus foi chamado. Sequer fui convidado para entrar na comunidade. A justificativa: eu estaria comprometido com o “outro lado”. Nova Olinda, dividida, vive uma guerra fria.

“Não queremos conversa. Vocês vieram aqui criar índio. Nós queremos ficar em paz e resolver os problemas”, disse um dos líderes da Fé em Deus. Atrás da roda de homens, gritou uma senhora: “A gente fala com vocês, depois vocês vão embora e a gente fica aqui, correndo perigo”. O temor que ela expressa representa alguma repressão interna que aquele povo vive e sobre a qual não quiseram falar.

Em Fé em Deus e nas demais comunidades que se comportam como se tivessem sido pressionadas, também se desconfia de jornalistas. Quando têm interesse de que algo seja publicado, convidam aqueles vistos como pertencentes a “seu lado”. Assim foi com um jornal local, de Santarém, o Impacto, e a revista Veja, que publicaram reportagens sob a égide de progresso e desenvolvimento. Ambos veículos de imprensa deixaram naquelas terras um rastro de desconforto que atinge qualquer jornalista que for para a Gleba, tornando infrutíferas qualquer tentativa de contato com os produtores rurais e os empresários.

Acompanhando um antropólogo de um instituto federal de pesquisa, interessado em compreender a relação das populações tradicionais com o Estado e sem nenhuma relação com questões étnicas, eu não havia sido levado por quaisquer dos dois lados do conflito por terras na região. Da mesma forma que os que desejam o progresso consideram terem “seus” jornalistas, também pensam disporem de antropólogos que os defendem. Nesse caso, eles contrataram Edward Luz, um antropólogo missionário, cuja missão é provar que nessa área não existem índios. Engajado de corpo e alma em acabar com o assunto, jovem líder evangélico na faixa de 30 anos, casado e pai de família, filho do pastor e presidente da Missão Novas Tribos do Brasil e formado em antropologia pela Universidade de Brasília, Edward Luz “nasceu e cresceu em berço missionário”, o próprio me diz numa linda manhã de sol em São Paulo. Era o primeiro dia da primavera de 2009, a mesma época em que tinham início as revoltas no Arapiuns. Estávamos em uma sala confortável na Universidade Mackenzie, junto de uns 15 alunos. Ele ministrava um curso para ensinar outros missionários a traduzirem a Bíblia para línguas indígenas. A missão, aqui, é levar a palavra da religião protestante para povos indígenas de pouco contato ou mesmo isolados. Um caso de proselitismo, que causou ao pai de Edward Luz (os dois têm o mesmo nome) a expulsão do território dos índios Zo’é, quando o filho ainda era criança. Além do proselitismo, também foram acusados de genocídio pela Funai, em razão de epidemias que podem ter provocado. Os Luz, desde então, foram proibidos de entrar em terras indígenas na posição de missionários.

Contratado pela Associação Comunitária dos Trabalhadores Rurais do Aruã e Maró (Acutarm), que é ligada aos empresários, foi solicitado a Luz, segundo ele escreveu em uma carta à qual tive acesso, “que se inteirasse dos fatos que vinham transcorrendo na região da mesopotâmia do Maró e o Aruan” para orientar a associação. Ele esteve nas três comunidades que “se autointitulam indígenas”, mas o acesso lhe foi negado. Ele quer analisar a situação étnica dos borari, que vivem em Cachoeira do Maró, Novo Lugar e São José. Essa demanda fundiária dos indígenas, dependendo dos cálculos da Funai, pode ficar entre 35 e 80 mil hectares. Edward sabe como funciona a Funai – ele já foi contratado pela própria para identificar terras indígenas do povo Kokama, na região do rio Solimões. Mas ele derrubou as pretensões da própria Funai e hoje responde a um processo.

A mais recente disputa de antropólogos sobre o tema ocorreu em meados de agosto, em Santarém, numa audiência pública. De um lado estavam Edward e Inácio Regis – intelectual local que também se apresenta como pesquisador e que também quer provar que aqueles índios, na verdade, não são índios, e que a terra deve ser destinada ao desenvolvimento. Em oposição estavam a antropóloga Manoela Carneiro da Cunha, professora aposentada da Universidade de Chicago, e Maria Rosário Carvalho, da Universidade Federal da Bahia.

Régis, que, procurado por e-mail, não respondeu a tentativas de entrevista, afirmou que os índios do Tapajós estão sendo induzidos a se assumirem indígenas. Luz disse que os vizinhos e parentes dos índios do Maró afirmam que eles não são índios. As duas mulheres foram polidas, e disseram que não estavam na área fazendo pesquisas de campo e, portanto, não poderiam opinar sobre o caso específico. Deixaram no ar, no entanto, que consideram essas comunidades indígenas sem colocar em questão a legitimidade da identidade.

Assim como minha presença na área foi notada com rapidez, o mesmo ocorre quando os órgãos públicos aportam para debates fundiários. De acordo com o relatório de um funcionário do Ibama que participou de uma fiscalização em 2007, a embarcação da equipe foi interceptada por uma lancha conduzida por Edson Taparello, na qual também estava Fernando Belusso, dono e gerente, respectivamente, da empresa Rondobel: “Indagaram para onde ia a equipe”, escreveu o funcionário.

Os empresários estavam acompanhados de Manoel Benezildo e da repórter Gerciene Belo, do jornal Impacto. Convocaram uma reunião-surpresa, sem programação oficial – burocracia que se faz necessária para ter a presença de representantes públicos. A equipe do Iterpa cedeu à pressão e deslocou-se na lancha do empresário. O técnico do Ibama preferiu não comparecer, pois, segundo ele, tratava-se de transporte oferecido por uma empresa que tinha interesse direto no problema e isso poderia causar interferência na fiscalização.

O relatório do Ibama, cujo integrante não compareceu à reunião, descreve o que a funcionária do Iterpa lhe contou: “Os participantes decidiram pela regularização fundiária dos lotes comunitários na modalidade individual, conforme era desejo, também, dos empresários”. A Terra Indígena Cachoeira do Maró está em processo de demarcação pela Funai. A última visita de funcionários do órgão ocorreu em setembro deste ano e buscava identificar fisicamente o local de ocupação. Para a Funai, não está em questão a autenticidade da reivindicação dos índios. “Não cabe ao Estado, ou à Funai, dizer quem é índio e quem não é”, afirma Márcio Meira, presidente da entidade

A lei e a antropologia, segundo Meira, definem a legitimidade da afirmação étnica pela autodeclaração. “Índio é qualquer membro de uma comunidade indígena, que se reconhece como tal e é reconhecido pela comunidade como um membro”, explica. É questão de afirmação social, histórica, econômica e cultural.

Na complexa teia de demandas por terras da Gleba Nova Olinda, a bola da vez é a criação do Projeto de Assentamento Estadual Agroextrativista (Peaex), que envolve as comunidades Vista Alegre e Prainha. Os títulos podem ser regularizados em cinco ou 25 mil hectares, em lotes individuais ou coletivos. E, para cada possibilidade, surge uma pressão contrária. É onde ocorrem os maiores achaques, já que a demanda dos boraris está nas mãos da Funai. Em Vista Alegre e Prainha também há divisão. Um lado, liderado por Márcio Crispim, na Prainha, e Sidiclei Fernandes dos Santos, na Vista Alegre, presidentes de associações locais montadas pelos empresários, pede ao Iterpa uma pequena área de cinco mil hectares e lotes individuais, de forma que vão poder seguir vendendo madeira para os empresários. A maioria se mostra contra esse posicionamento, mas não sabe como se manifestar oficialmente. Pedem um assentamento de lote coletivo, com cerca de 25 mil hectares – número próximo ao definido por uma pesquisa realizada pelo Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, e que identifica a área realmente ocupada pelo uso tradicional, incluindo reservas de caça e terras para plantações de mandioca, como entre 15 e 20 mil hectares.

Algumas associações comunitárias, como a Acutarm, estão unidas para a luta por uma terra menor. No dia 18 de junho ocorreu uma reunião com os empresários, os presidentes das associações, equipes do Iterpa e da Sema. “Os funcionários públicos não estavam capacitados juridicamente para a discussão fundiária. Estavam ali apenas para fazer vistorias dos planos de manejo de madeira”, relatou um funcionário do Ministério Público que não quis se identificar. Isso não foi um empecilho, pois a reunião ocorreu, de acordo com um relatório do MP, inclusive com a presença dos madeireiros Rosenil Vaz, Francisco Souza e Alfredo Sippert.

Laurimar dos santos, o guariba, 63 anos, vive na Prainha e mostrou-se revoltado com a situação que está vivendo quando nos encontramos. Simpático, ele afirmou que não gosta de ir à cidade: “Lá nos tratam que nem bicho, nos chamam de índio”. Santos não aceita um terreno de cinco mil hectares para toda sua família e comunidade. “Estão nos espremendo, vamos comer areia”, esbraveja.

Contrário à posição de Santos está o desejo de Márcio Crispim, que me recebeu de uma forma também simpática, ainda que um tanto desconfiada. Crispim é presidente da associação da sua comunidade, mas ele não se lembra do nome. Diz que não precisam dessa terra toda. Sobre a associação que preside (mais tarde descobri que se trata da Ainorma), Crispim afirmou que nunca houve uma reunião ou assembleia, assumiu sem desconforto que é ligado aos madeireiros, e que por isso recebe um salário com carteira assinada. Está certo de estar contribuindo para o desenvolvimento da região. Mas em outra roda de conversa comentaram que ele deseja partir para Manaus com o dinheiro que tem recebido.

Crispim é amigo de Sidiclei, pastor evangélico da Vista Alegre, que por sua vez é amigo de Edward Luz, o antropólogo missionário. Sidiclei também luta para convencer sua comunidade a aceitar um território menor, ajudar os empresários e receber benefícios e investimentos em troca. Só que Sidiclei deu uma derrapada no terreno da ética, logo após o episódio do fogo no Arapiuns. E foi obrigado a retratar-se publicamente de seus atos, acusado de achacar sua própria comunidade. Ele havia escrito uma carta, “impulsionado pela raiva da informação que foi repassada para nós”, em suas palavras, e resolveu escrever outra em seguida, para as autoridades, desmentindo-se da primeira. As duas cartas estão com o Ministério Público do Estado. A primeira é um abaixo-assinado organizado por ele, no qual a comunidade abria mão de 20 mil hectares em favor das empresas madeireiras e do desenvolvimento regional. Mas a história não foi bem assim, segundo Sidiclei. Em 7 de dezembro passado, ele assinou a segunda carta, direcionada ao Iterpa, na qual constava: “A lista foi feita como um abaixo-assinado das pessoas que queriam um gerador e não dos que queriam a ampliação da área da comunidade… quem foi coletar essas assinaturas fui eu… quando conversava com os moradores, explicava que era uma lista para conseguir o gerador”. Resumo: o abaixo-assinado que ele mesmo organizou foi feito para pedir a diminuição de terras, e não para ganhar um gerador elétrico.

Sidiclei abriu para o Iterpa o jogo para reduzir o território comunitário. Mas seguiu lutando ao lado daqueles que ofereciam o gerador em troca de madeira de lei. As doações têm sido feitas, e a comunidade tem se mostrado receptiva com as benfeitorias. De acordo com o que se ouviu numa recente visita do MP à Vista Alegre, disseram que “receberam doações de seu Francisco Souza, ganharam um grupo gerador, fiação elétrica, vão construir um templo”. Eles “preferem ficar com os cinco mil hectares e ter certeza de que terão os empregos com os empresários madeireiros”. A promotora de justiça também os ouviu dizer que “há pessoas empregadas de carteira assinada e que recebem direitinho e que a vida melhorou bastante e acham que pode melhorar ainda mais”.

Desde que a indústria madeireira passou a sofrer com a repressão à extração ilegal, a partir de 2008, o Oeste paraense foi alçado à posição de um dos grandes fornecedores do mercado. No último ano houve um crescimento de 76% das autorizações de manejo florestal, segundo o jornal Folha de S. Paulo. Operações de fiscalização têm sido realizadas – inclusive, contando com apoio logístico dos madeireiros. Por vezes são distribuídas multas. Os bens apreendidos, como carretas, motosserras, tratores, quando pegos em flagrante, têm sido liberados pela Justiça Federal de Santarém. E, por mais que os fiscais do Ibama percebam que há algo estranho no ar, eles não têm conseguido comprovar. E, em ano eleitoral, um dos setores mais importantes da economia do estado, o setor madeireiro passou a ter ainda mais influência política. “A gente sabe que tem coisa errada, que extraem madeira fora do plano. O problema é que é difícil provar”, afirma um ex-funcionário do Ibama local que também não quer se identificar.

No caso do incêndio das balsas, como nem o IBAMA nem a Sema conseguiam provar as ações ilegais na região, e a demanda fundiária não foi resolvida, surgiu a revolta. Para reagir contra a retirada da madeira e a falta de definição dos títulos de terras, os moradores da Gleba Nova Olinda se juntaram com os ribeirinhos e indígenas do Arapiuns e apreenderam as duas balsas.

Diversas lideranças comunitárias estavam presentes. Agiam de forma coletiva. Mas uma personalidade, já de destaque no movimento social de resistência, foi acusada de ser uma das responsáveis e responde judicialmente pelo ato, junto de um grupo de líderes. É Dadá, do Novo Lugar. “Sou perseguido”, ele diz. Tem sido assim desde que ele fez um curso de agente ambiental do Ibama, em 2003, época em que teria iniciado sua luta política.

Foi nos tempos do Ibama que Dadá, com acesso a relatórios de fiscalização e autorizações de manejo de madeira, descobriu a chegada dos madeireiros na área e passou a organizar a resistência. Com ele estavam Edil e Valnei, líderes de suas respectivas comunidades (Novo Lugar, Cachoeira do Maró e Sociedade dos Parentes). Esses dois tiveram de fugir da região, sob escolta do programa de proteção, para não serem mortos. Dadá ficou: “O que adianta eu ter uma proteção fora, se na aldeia vão ficar meus filhos, minha esposa, minha mãe, meus tios? Se querem me proteger, que seja na minha casa, na aldeia”.

José Heder Benatti, presidente do Iterpa, diz que está informado das negociações por terra que estão ocorrendo sob pressão e achaque. Justifica que o Estado está tomando providências para regularizar a região e consertar os erros anteriores. “As comunidades estão sendo ouvidas, com prioridade, sobre o uso tradicional da terra”, afirma, lembrando que isso não ocorreu quando transferiram os madeireiros.

Se insistirem em trocar um gerador por 20 mil hectares, Benatti diz que o instituto vai negar a titulação. “Essa pressão vai ser inócua”, garante. “A área vai ser formalizada, junto ao Ministério Público, com referência ao estudo do Museu Goeldi. Eles vão ter direito à área que ocupam e usufruem.” Se a programação correr da maneira que ele espera, em três anos o Oeste do Pará, que era uma área esquecida, terá regularizado 1,3 milhão de hectares. No entanto, “período eleitoral não é muito favorável para esse tipo de conversa”, pondera o presidente do Iterpa. Outro problema é que, enquanto isso, a valiosa madeira que pertence em parte às comunidades, e em parte ao patrimônio público, terá sido escoada por mãos privadas.

“Eu tenho medo”, relata a mãe de dadá. Dona Edite assistiu seu filho chegar em casa ferido após o espancamento, a casa dele ser queimada na aldeia, e, neste ano, o outro filho, Poró, também chegar em casa espancado, em maio último. “Dizem por aí que não tem conflito”, ela diz, em alusão a declarações de lideranças de Fé em Deus e Vista Alegre. “Isso é mentira! Aqui tem conflito, e temo por meus filhos. Eu fico muito preocupada. Tem noite que não durmo. Fico tensa quando vão à cidade. Sonho que meu filho pode estar sendo morto”, desabafa a senhora. “Eu tenho muito medo.”

Heat, Flood or Icy Cold, Extreme Weather Rages Worldwide (N.Y.Times)

NY Times

January 10, 2013

By SARAH LYALL

WORCESTER, England — Britons may remember 2012 as the year the weather spun off its rails in a chaotic concoction of drought, deluge and flooding, but the unpredictability of it all turns out to have been all too predictable: Around the world, extreme has become the new commonplace.

Especially lately. China is enduring its coldest winter in nearly 30 years. Brazil is in the grip of a dreadful heat spell. Eastern Russia is so freezing — minus 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and counting — that the traffic lights recently stopped working in the city of Yakutsk.

Bush fires are raging across Australia, fueled by a record-shattering heat wave. Pakistan was inundated by unexpected flooding in September. A vicious storm bringing rain, snow and floods just struck the Middle East. And in the United States, scientists confirmed this week what people could have figured out simply by going outside: last year was the hottest since records began.

“Each year we have extreme weather, but it’s unusual to have so many extreme events around the world at once,” said Omar Baddour, chief of the data management applications division at the World Meteorological Organization, in Geneva. “The heat wave in Australia; the flooding in the U.K., and most recently the flooding and extensive snowstorm in the Middle East — it’s already a big year in terms of extreme weather calamity.”

Such events are increasing in intensity as well as frequency, Mr. Baddour said, a sign that climate change is not just about rising temperatures, but also about intense, unpleasant, anomalous weather of all kinds.

Here in Britain, people are used to thinking of rain as the wallpaper on life’s computer screen — an omnipresent, almost comforting background presence. But even the hardiest citizen was rattled by the near-biblical fierceness of the rains that bucketed down, and the floods that followed, three different times in 2012.

Rescuers plucked people by boat from their swamped homes in St. Asaph, North Wales. Whole areas of the country were cut off when roads and train tracks were inundated at Christmas. In Megavissey, Cornwall, a pub owner closed his business for good after it flooded 11 times in two months.

It was no anomaly: the floods of 2012 followed the floods of 2007 and also the floods of 2009, which all told have resulted in nearly $6.5 billion in insurance payouts. The Met Office, Britain’s weather service, declared 2012 the wettest year in England, and the second-wettest in Britain as a whole, since records began more than 100 years ago. Four of the five wettest years in the last century have come in the past decade (the fifth was in 1954).

The biggest change, said Charles Powell, a spokesman for the Met Office, is the frequency in Britain of “extreme weather events” — defined as rainfall reaching the top 1 percent of the average amount for that time of year. Fifty years ago, such episodes used to happen every 100 days; now they happen every 70 days, he said.

The same thing is true in Australia, where bush fires are raging across Tasmania and the current heat wave has come after two of the country’s wettest years ever. On Tuesday, Sydney experienced its fifth-hottest day since records began in 1910, with the temperature climbing to 108.1 degrees. The first eight days of 2013 were among the 20 hottest on record.

Every decade since the 1950s has been hotter in Australia than the one before, said Mark Stafford Smith, science director of the Climate Adaptation Flagship at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

To the north, the extremes have swung the other way, with a band of cold settling across Russia and Northern Europe, bringing thick snow and howling winds to Stockholm, Helsinki and Moscow. (Incongruously, there were also severe snowstorms in Sicily and southern Italy for the first time since World War II; in December, tornadoes and waterspouts struck the Italian coast.)

In Siberia, thousands of people were left without heat when natural gas liquefied in its pipes and water mains burst. Officials canceled bus transportation between cities for fear that roadside breakdowns could lead to deaths from exposure, and motorists were advised not to venture far afield except in columns of two or three cars. In Altai, to the east, traffic officials warned drivers not to use poor-quality diesel, saying that it could become viscous in the cold and clog fuel lines.

Meanwhile, China is enduring its worst winter in recent memory, with frigid temperatures recorded in Harbin, in the northeast. In the western region of Xinjiang, more than 1,000 houses collapsed under a relentless onslaught of snow, while in Inner Mongolia, 180,000 livestock froze to death. The cold has wreaked havoc with crops, sending the price of vegetables soaring.

Way down in South America, energy analysts say that Brazil may face electricity rationing for the first time since 2002, as a heat wave and a lack of rain deplete the reservoirs for hydroelectric plants. The summer has been punishingly hot. The temperature in Rio de Janeiro climbed to 109.8 degrees on Dec. 26, the city’s highest temperature since official records began in 1915.

At the same time, in the Middle East, Jordan is battling a storm packing torrential rain, snow, hail and floods that are cascading through tunnels, sweeping away cars and spreading misery in Syrian refugee camps. Amman has been virtually paralyzed, with cars abandoned, roads impassable and government offices closed.

Israel and the Palestinian territories are grappling with similar conditions, after a week of intense rain and cold winds ushered in a snowstorm that dumped eight inches in Jerusalem alone.

Amir Givati, head of the surface water department at the Israel Hydrological Service, said the storm was truly unusual because of its duration, its intensity and its breadth. Snow and hail fell not just in the north, but as far south as the desert city of Dimona, best known for its nuclear reactor.

In Beirut on Wednesday night, towering waves crashed against the Corniche, the seaside promenade downtown, flinging water and foam dozens of feet in the air as lightning flickered across the dark sea at multiple points along the horizon. Many roads were flooded as hail pounded the city.

Several people died, including a baby boy in a family of shepherds who was swept out of his mother’s arms by floodwaters. The greatest concern was for the 160,000 Syrian refugees who have fled to Lebanon, taking shelter in schools, sheds and, where possible, with local families. Some refugees are living in farm outbuildings, which are particularly vulnerable to cold and rain.

Barry Lynn, who runs a forecasting business and is a lecturer at the Hebrew University’s department of earth science, said a striking aspect of the whole thing was the severe and prolonged cold in the upper atmosphere, a big-picture shift that indicated the Atlantic Ocean was no longer having the moderating effect on weather in the Middle East and Europe that it has historically.

“The intensity of the cold is unusual,” Mr. Lynn said. “It seems the weather is going to become more intense; there’s going to be more extremes.”

In Britain, where changes to the positioning of the jet stream — a ribbon of air high up in the atmosphere that helps steer weather systems — may be contributing to the topsy-turvy weather, people are still recovering from the December floods. In Worcester last week, the river Severn remained flooded after three weeks, with playing fields buried under water.

In the shop at the Worcester Cathedral, Julie Smith, 54, was struggling, she said, to adjust to the new uncertainty.

“For the past seven or eight years, there’s been a serious incident in a different part of the country,” Mrs. Smith said. “We don’t expect extremes. We don’t expect it to be like this.”

Reporting was contributed by Jodi Rudoren from Jerusalem; Irit Pazner Garshowitz from Tzur Hadassah, Israel; Fares Akram from Gaza City, Gaza; Ellen Barry and Andrew Roth from Moscow; Ranya Kadri from Amman, Jordan; Dan Levin from Harbin, China; Jim Yardley from New Delhi; Anne Barnard from Beirut, Lebanon; Matt Siegel from Sydney, Australia; Scott Sayare from Paris; and Simon Romero from Rio de Janeiro.

*   *   *

 It’s Official: 2012 Was Hottest Year Ever in U.S.

By JUSTIN GILLIS

NY Times, January 8, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/science/earth/2012-was-hottest-year-ever-in-us.html?hp&_r=0

The numbers are in: 2012, the year of a surreal March heat wave, a severe drought in the corn belt and a massive storm that caused broad devastation in the mid-Atlantic states, turns out to have been the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States.

How hot was it? The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but last year blew away the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.

If that does not sound sufficiently impressive, consider that 34,008 new daily high records were set at weather stations across the country, compared with only 6,664 new record lows, according to a count maintained by the Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton, using federal temperature records.

That ratio, which was roughly in balance as recently as the 1970s, has been out of whack for decades as the country has warmed, but never by as much as it was last year.

“The heat was remarkable,” said Jake Crouch, a scientist with the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., which released the official climate compilation on Tuesday. “It was prolonged. That we beat the record by one degree is quite a big deal.”

Scientists said that natural variability almost certainly played a role in last year’s extreme heat and drought. But many of them expressed doubt that such a striking new record would have been set without the backdrop of global warming caused by the human release of greenhouse gases. And they warned that 2012 was likely a foretaste of things to come, as continuing warming makes heat extremes more likely.

Even so, the last year’s record for the United States is not expected to translate into a global temperature record when figures are released in coming weeks. The year featured a La Niña weather pattern, which tends to cool the global climate over all, and scientists expect it to be the world’s eighth or ninth warmest year on record.

Assuming that prediction holds up, it will mean that the 10 warmest years on record all fell within the past 15 years, a measure of how much the planet has warmed. Nobody who is under 28 has lived through a month of global temperatures that fell below the 20th-century average, because the last such month was February 1985.

Last year’s weather in the United States began with an unusually warm winter, with relatively little snow across much of the country, followed by a March that was so hot that trees burst into bloom and swimming pools opened early. The soil dried out in the March heat, helping to set the stage for a drought that peaked during the warmest July on record.

The drought engulfed 61 percent of the nation, killed corn and soybean crops and sent prices spiraling. It was comparable to a severe drought in the 1950s, Mr. Crouch said, but not quite as severe as the legendary Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s, which was exacerbated by poor farming practices that allowed topsoil to blow away.

Extensive records covering the lower 48 states go back to 1895; Alaska and Hawaii have shorter records and are generally not included in long-term climate comparisons for that reason.

Mr. Crouch pointed out that until last year, the coldest year in the historical record for the lower 48 states, 1917, was separated from the warmest year, 1998, by only 4.2 degrees Fahrenheit. That is why the 2012 record, and its one degree increase over 1998, strikes climatologists as so unusual.

“We’re taking quite a large step above what the period of record has shown for the contiguous United States,” he said.

In addition to being the nation’s warmest year, 2012 turned out to be the second-worst on a measure called the Climate Extremes Index, surpassed only by 1998.

Experts are still counting, but so far 11 disasters in 2012 have exceeded a threshold of $1 billion in damages, including several tornado outbreaks; Hurricane Isaac, which hit the Gulf Coast in August; and, late in the year, Hurricane Sandy, which caused damage likely to exceed $60 billion in nearly half the states, primarily in the mid-Atlantic region.

Among those big disasters was one bearing a label many people had never heard before: the derecho, a line of severe, fast-moving thunderstorms that struck central and eastern parts of the country starting on June 29, killing more than 20 people, toppling trees and knocking out power for millions of households.

For people who escaped both the derecho and Hurricane Sandy relatively unscathed, the year may be remembered most for the sheer breadth and oppressiveness of the summer heat wave. By the calculations of the climatic data center, a third of the nation’s population experienced 10 or more days of summer temperatures exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

Among the cities that set temperature records in 2012 were Nashville; Athens, Ga.; and Cairo, Ill., all of which hit 109 degrees on June 29; Greenville, S.C., which hit 107 degrees on July 1; and Lamar, Colo., which hit 112 degrees on June 27.

With the end of the growing season, coverage of the drought has waned, but the drought itself has not. Mr. Crouch pointed out that at the beginning of January, 61 percent of the country was still in moderate to severe drought conditions. “I foresee that it’s going to be a big story moving forward in 2013,” he said.