The answer to the oft-asked question of whether an event is caused by climate change is that it is the wrong question. All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be….

The air is on average warmer and moister than it was prior to about 1970 and in turn has likely led to a 5–10 % effect on precipitation and storms that is greatly amplified in extremes. The warm moist air is readily advected onto land and caught up in weather systems as part of the hydrological cycle, where it contributes to more intense precipitation events that are widely observed to be occurring.

Seasonal Jun-Jul-Aug 2010 sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies relative to 1951–70. Record high SSTs were recorded in the locations and at the times indicated with record flooding nearby.

Kevin E. Trenberth, senior scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, in the journal Climatic Change, released under a Creative Commons-Attribution license (PDF here, HTML here)

Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change

by Zachary Shahan, via CleanTechnica

The world’s first 6-MW offshore wind turbine went up in the North Sea this week. Wind company REpower and C- Power NV, a Belgian offshore development company, installed the wind turbine, the first of 48 for the Thornton Bank II wind farm, which is being constructed approximately 28 kilometers off the Belgian coast.

The wind turbine is actually rated at 6.15 MW and is the first turbine of phase 2 of this offshore wind project — REpower has an interesting interactive image on its site where you can explore its 11 main features. “In the early hours of 21 March the rotor star was connected to the nacelle by a team of C-Power and REpower engineers and the crew of Neptune, the installation vessel of GeoSea (DEME group) carrying the components for the turbine,” REpower writes.

Here are more details:

The offshore turbine REpower 6M has the dimension of two family homes and the rotor star has a diameter of 126 metres, with a swept area greater than two football pitches.

The installation of the first 30 turbines for phase 2 of the wind farm is planned for 2012, and a further 18 are designated for installation during a third extension stage by mid-2013.

Phase 1 of the Thornton Bank II wind farm was constructed in 2008 and 2009. It includes 5-MW wind turbines. More details: “The offshore wind farm, located around 28 kilometres off the Belgian coast in waters between twelve and 27 meters deep, was officially put into operation at the end of June 2009. Since it started operation, Thornton Bank generated almost 350,000 megawatt hours of electricity.”

Belgium intends to get 13% of its energy from renewable energy sources by 2020.

Zachary Shahan is the editor of CleanTechnica.com and PlaneSave.com. This piece was originally published at CleanTechnica.

If you haven’t already been over to the Climate Desk, check it out. They’ve accumulated some great reporting on climate issues and produced some very slick films on science and clean energy.

The latest film put together by Climate Desk producer James West cuts through the knee jerk political reactions to the President’s support of algae biofuels and asks: “will it ever be the fuel of the future?” In truth, there’s a lot of debate over what impact it will have.

Algae-based biofuels have come down dramatically in cost over the decades, from hundreds of dollars per gallon to between $8 and $30 a gallon. However, companies reaching commercial scale still haven’t inched over the last few yards to achieve cost parity with petroleum-based fuels. Experts don’t expect the resource to play a major role in our fuel mix for another 5-10 years.

But there’s a lot of fascinating research happening the field today, and companies are closer than ever to cracking the code. Even though algae fuels won’t have an immediate impact, this film illustrates why mocking the President for supporting innovative alternatives to petroleum is just silly.

by John Farrell, via Renewable Energy World

The Germans are debating significant revisions to their landmark renewable energy policy, and instead of declaring the death of the German solar market, Americans should focus on why solar still costs so much on this side of the Atlantic.

After a significant step-down this month, revisions to the German feed-in tariff will require utilities to buy electricity from solar projects 10 kilowatts or smaller for 19.5 euro cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on a 20-year contract.  Larger projects (over 1 megawatt) will get just 13.5 euro cents per kWh.  Using insolation data for Munich, these prices translate to installed costs of approximately $2.24 and $1.55 per Watt, respectively.

For comparison, in the U.S. in the 3rd quarter of 2011 the average installed cost of solar was $5.20 per Watt with residential-scale projects costing $6.40 per Watt.

What would German installation costs mean for the U.S. solar market, where sunshine is 29% (in the cast of Minneapolis) to 70 percent (Los Angeles) more abundant?  Americans could buy solar on long-term contracts – with no subsidies – for 18.6 cents per kWh in Minneapolis, and just 15.4 cents in Los Angeles.  Factor in the federal 30 percent solar tax credit and Minneapolitans could get solar for 14.3 cents per kWh, Los Angelenos for 11.8 cents.

Already, the trajectory of solar costs and electricity prices suggests that 100 million Americans will be able to get cheaper electricity from their rooftops than from their utility in the next decade (see ILSR’s new report – Rooftop Revolution: Changing Everything with Cost-Effective Local Solar).

But if Americans could install solar at the same price as the Germans, 47 million Americans in the nation’s largest cities would be at solar grid parity – without subsidies – right now.  By 2015, assuming no change in the cost of solar and a modest 2 percent per year inflation in retail electricity prices, 100 million Americans in major cities could beat grid prices with rooftop solar.

Yes, Germany is cutting their solar contract prices.  But this is in a market that installed 7,000 megawatts of solar per year in the past two years – 20 times the U.S. pace on a per capita basis.  And they are doing it at half the cost (or better).  That’s the benefit of a decade of consistent renewable energy policy – the feed-in tariff – that provides a low-risk, long-term contract for solar project owners.  Compare that to America’s hodge-podge of fifty individual state policies, stacked on top of federal incentives that can only be used by businesses with big tax liability (or their Wall Street partners).

The irony is that Americans point to Germany and say, “they pay too much for electricity,” while a majority of Germans continue to say, “we’re willing to pay more for clean power,” because they can (and do) own it.  In fact, over half of Germany’s renewable energy capacity is locally owned, multiplying the economic benefits of their renewable energy policy and reinforcing political support for clean energy (while support for clean energy has declined in the U.S.).

Quite a few folks have decried the price cuts to the German solar feed-in tariff as “the end is nigh,” but especially in comparison to American solar policy, it’s more appropriate to declare, “mission accomplished.”

John Farrell directs the Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program at the Institute for Local Self Reliance. This piece was originally published at Renewable Energy World.