Last week I wrote that “Every Network Gets Extreme Weather Story Right.” The ABC News weather editor even ended his story, “Now’s the time we start limiting manmade greenhouse gases.”

But the major networks only devote 3 minutes each to what is in fact the “Climate Story of the Year: Warming-Driven Drought and Extreme Weather Emerge as Key Threat to Global Food Security.”

Indeed, global warming is the story of the century — and if we don’t start reducing greenhouse gas emissions ASAP, it will be the story of the millennium — see NOAA stunner: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe (if we don’t act quickly).  See also Nature Geoscience: Ocean dead zones “devoid of fish and seafood” are poised to expand and “remain for thousands of years.“

So the story deserves much more than 3 minutes. Here is “Inside Story Americas” from al Jazeera English with a 25-minute segment. There’s no point in summarizing it. The point is the in-depth discussion, featuring Michael Mann, Bob Deans, and Heidi Cullen.

Cullen has become a metaphor machine: “Weather autopsy” and “lone gunman theory” are awesome. She also said, “climate change increases your chances of being unlucky” with extreme weather.

Kudos to everyone involved. Time for every major network to do the same thing.

Related Post:

• We’re Already Topping Dust Bowl Temperatures — Imagine What’ll Happen If We Fail To Stop 10°F Warming

Andrew Freedman, via Climate Central

The Arctic melt season is well underway, and sea ice extent — a key indicator of global warming — declined rapidly during June, setting a record for the largest June sea ice loss in the satellite era. Sea ice extent is currently running just below the level seen at the same time in 2007, the year that set the record for the lowest sea ice minimum in the satellite era.

Arctic sea ice extent as of July 12, plus daily extent data for 2007 record melt season. Gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range. Credit: NSIDC.

While the current rate of sea ice decline does not necessarily indicate that another record low will be set this year — weather conditions and other factors could slow the melt before the September sea ice minimum — so far the 2012 melt season has continued the trend of accelerated sea ice loss in the Far North.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo., large amounts of sea ice loss were observed during June in the Beaufort, Bering, and Kara Seas as well as Baffin and Hudson Bay. The only area with above average sea ice at the end of June was the eastern Greenland coast, the NSIDC stated.

During June, the Arctic lost a record total of about 1.1 million square miles of ice — an area about as large as the combined land area of Alaska, California, Florida, and Texas. At the end of the month, Arctic sea ice extent was 456,000 square miles below the 1979-to-2000 average. The past three years have seen the lowest June ice extents on record, and this year, sea ice loss is running about three weeks ahead of schedule. The ice extent recorded for June 30 would normally be expected on July 21, based on the 1979-2000 average, the NSIDC said.

Northern Hemisphere June snow cover anomalies, showing the record low in 2012. Credit: NSIDC.

Warmer-than-average air temperatures and a lack of snow cover helped speed the melt, according to the NSIDC. In its July 5 analysis, the NSIDC reported that a record low Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was set for the month of June.

“This rapid and early retreat of snow cover exposes large, darker underlying surfaces to the sun early in the season,” the NSIDC reported, “fostering higher air temperatures and warmer soils.”

In general, the Arctic has been warming at a rate about twice that of lower latitudes, a trend that is expected to continue due to feedbacks in the Arctic climate system. For example, when sea ice melts, the darker ocean surface is exposed to incoming solar radiation. This warms the water and the air much more than if the brighter sea ice had remained.

Recent research has demonstrated that rapid Arctic climate change is altering the flow of weather systems across the Northern Hemisphere, raising the possibility of far-reaching consequences well south of the Arctic Circle. Increased summer sea ice loss is also helping to open the Arctic to oil and natural gas drilling, as well as increased shipping activities, which could cause further changes to the Arctic environment.

Andrew Freedman is the Senior Science Writer for Climate Central. This piece was originally published at Climate Central and is reprinted with permission.

JR: What follows is a video and excerpt from Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice blog:

Read more

mcdlttx, via Flickr

by Zoë Casey, via Renewable Energy World

Wind energy opponents who say that producing electricity using the power of the wind is not efficient would do well to take a look at a new graphic published on the Guardian’s data blog using UK Government data. ‘Up in smoke: how energy efficient is electricity produced in the UK?’ shows that thermal sources of electricity – gas, coal, nuclear, waste/biomass, oil and other – lose massive amounts of energy as waste heat, compared to almost 0% for renewables.

Gas accounts for 48% of the UK’s electricity supply and, of the 372 Terra-Watt hours of electricity it produces per year, 54% of this is lost as heat. Coal, meanwhile, accounts for 28% producing 297 TWh, loses an even higher proportion – 66%. Nuclear – accounting for 16% of the energy supply with 162 TWh, loses 65% and oil – 3% of the supply with 51 TWh – loses 77%.

Contrast these figures with renewable energy – which all together account for 4% of the UK’s electricity supply producing 14 TWh – they lose less than one percent. So, under this measure, renewable energy is 100% efficient.

Wind energy opponents centre their arguments on the ‘capacity factor’ of a wind farm. The capacity factor of any power plant is a measure of the amount of energy it actually generates compared to its theoretical maximum output in a given time. No power plant operates at 100% of its capacity.

Wind farms do not operate at wind speeds of less than 4 metres per second, and they are shut down to prevent damage during gale force winds of 25 metres/second or more, or for maintenance. But conventional power stations also do not operate all the time – they stop generating electricity during maintenance or breakdowns.

Comparing the outputs of both sources does show that conventional power stations produce power at a level compared to their theoretical maximum that is currently higher than the level for wind energy. Wind power’s capacity factor is around 30% onshore and 40% offshore, increasing year on year as more wind turbines come online and technology improves. Meanwhile, data from the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (Bundesverband der Energie und Wasserwirtschaft) shows that fossil fuels are often below 50%, even in winter.

RenewableUK, the national industry body, says that the UK has one of the best wind regimes in the world and wind turbines have considerably higher capacity factors than many of the European countries where wind already makes a significant contribution to electricity supplies. Denmark, for example, has a wind farm capacity factor of 24% and yet wind power ‘fuels’ over a quarter of its electricity supply.

Zoë Casey is the Communications director and blog editor for the European Wind Energy Association. This piece was originally published at Renewable Energy World and was reprinted with permission.

Underappreciated player in carbon storage should be included in global change models, researcher says

– Indiana University news release. Study here.

Research was conducted at Duke Forest Free Air CO2 Enrichment site, where pine trees were exposed to increased levels of CO2 for 14 years -- one of the world's longest-running CO2 enrichment experiments. (Credit: Will Owens)

Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate carbon cycling and soil carbon loss in forests, new research led by an Indiana University biologist has found.

The new evidence supports an emerging view that although forests remove a substantial amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, much of the carbon is being stored in living woody biomass rather than as dead organic matter in soils.

Richard P. Phillips, lead author on the paper and an assistant professor of biology in the IU College of Arts and Sciences, said that after nearly two decades of research on forest ecosystem responses to global change, some of the uncertainty has been lifted about how forests are storing carbon in the wake of rising carbon dioxide levels.

“It’s been suggested that as trees take up more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a greater amount of carbon will go to roots and fungi to acquire nutrients, but our results show that little of this carbon accumulates in soil because the decomposition of root and fungal detritus is also increased,” he said.

Carbon stored in soils, as opposed to in the wood of trees, is desirable from a management perspective in that soils are more stable over time, so carbon can be locked away for hundreds to thousands of years and not contribute to atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.

The research was conducted at the Duke Forest Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment site in North Carolina. At this site, mature loblolly pine trees were exposed to increased levels of carbon dioxide for 14 years, making it one of the longest-running carbon dioxide enrichment experiments in the world. Researchers were able to calculate the age of the carbon cycling through the soil by growing roots and fungi into mesh bags that contained uniquely labeled soils. The soils were then analyzed for their organic composition.

Read more