Is Global Warming Hot Again in Hollywood?
By Heidi Cullen
As I wait patiently for the premiere of The Hunger Games – that violent, post-apocalyptic take on Coal-Miner’s Daughter based on the young adult science fiction novel by Suzanne Collins, I was excited to read Alyssa Rosenberg’s post over at Think Progress about two new projects with climate change themes.
First up is J.J. Abrams' Revolution, which was just picked up by NBC. Described as a new “high octane action drama . . . following a group of characters struggling to survive and reunite with loved ones in a world where all forms of energy have mysteriously ceased to exist.” I was happy to see that Lost’s Bryan Burk will be executive producing alongside Abrams.
An early logline for Revolution describes it like this, “In this epic adventure thriller, a family struggles to reunite in a post-apocalyptic American landscape: a world of empty cities, local militias and heroic freedom fighters, where every single piece of technology – computers, planes, cars, phones, even lights – has mysteriously blacked out . . . forever.” Hmm. Sounds a little like Lost meets Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. I’m in.
The other project is Snow Piercer, an indie science-fiction flick set to star Tilda Swinton (Alyssa, you’re right, Swinton is from the future) and The Help’s Octavia Spencer. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Snow Piercer, is set in “a future where, after a failed experiment to stop global warming, an Ice Age kills off all life on the planet except for the inh...
Global Warming Satellite Data Claims Don’t Withstand Scrutiny
Sometimes, covering climate science feels like playing a neverending game of whack-a-mole, since the same dubious arguments — often put forward by the same people — pop up again and again, only to be repeatedly debunked. Today is no different. Over at the Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang blog, I have a column responding to a press release issued late last week marking the 33rd year of temperature data from the lower atmosphere, as detected by satellites.
The release, from John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, made several claims that were misleading at best, including the argument that because climate models don't accurately simulate temperature trends in the lower atmosphere compared to the surface, our understanding of global warming is seriously flawed.
As I show, that argument was contradicted by a federal science assessment back in 2006, for which both Spencer and Christy served as coauthors.
Lower tropospheric temperature trends around the globe since December 1978 expressed in degrees per decade. Only portions of the Antarctic, two areas off the southwestern coast of South America, and a small region south of Hawaii have cooled during this period. Credit: University of Alabama-Huntsville.
That report found: “Given the range of model results and the overlap between them and the available observations, there is no conflict between observed changes and the results from climate models.” As I note: "Moreover, a 2010 review of more recent research on this topic concluded: “There is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively.”
Here's more from the Post:
A second mislea...
The Easy Fix That Isn’t: White Roofs May Increase Global Warming
Installing white roofs (or painting them white) has been promoted as a way to help slow global warming. New research shows that white roofs may actually add to global warming. Credit: NNSA/flickr.
[Update, Nov. 8, 2011: WhiteRoofProject.com has posted a new blog in response to some of the coverage of Jacobson’s recent study on white roofs, including mine below. They offer some important points that I didn’t cover in my piece, so their blog is worth reading. In particular, previous research has shown that in some specific regions, like those near the equator, white roofs probably offer more benefits than drawbacks, from an emissions perspective – something Jacobson’s computer models haven’t yet accounted for.
I should stress that Jacobson’s study is just one piece of research in a broad field, but it’s an important study nonetheless. More than anything, it points out that the science isn’t settled on white and cool roofs, and that more research can help figure out where and how they can be put to good use.]
If you’re interested in staving off climate change without trying too hard, painting your roof white seems like a complete no-brainer. It’s far cheaper than trading in your SUV for a Prius, and it turns the laws of physics to best advantage. Dark roofs absorb sunlight that heats up your house, office tower, or apartment building. That means you’re bound to crank up the energy-intensive air conditioner to keep pace in the summer months — and since electricity in the U.S. comes largely from fossil fuels, the net result is more heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, and more global warming.
But a white roof does just the opposite. It bounces...
Replacing Coal With Clean Energy — Let Me Count the Ways
Coal-fired power plants provide about 45 percent of U.S. electricity. To increase the percentage of electricity coming from clean energy sources, America will likely have to move away from coal. Credit: Cathy Haglund/flickr.
As I recently pointed out, Americans consume immense quantities of electricity each year. Depending on where you live, it might come from a coal or a gas-fired power plant, a nuclear plant, a hydroelectric dam, wind turbines or even solar panels. I must admit, though, that I have no idea where my electricity comes from (other than out of the wall). But since I live in central New Jersey, my electricity probably comes from both coal, gas, and nuclear power plants.
For the country overall, the relative proportions of each type of electricity have stayed constant for about the past 15 years:
- Coal and natural gas produce 70 percent of our electricity
- Nuclear power generates about 20 percent
- Renewable sources (like wind and hydropower) provide about 10 percent.
Now, it looks like those proportions could be about to change.
During the 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama announced a new U.S. energy target: produce 80 percent of electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. Burning coal and natural gas to generate electricity releases billions of tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) gas into the atmosphere, so switching to more “clean” energy sources would help curb a lot of America’s greenhouse gas emissions, which are partly responsible for warming the climate.
So where is all this “clean energy” going to come from? To start with, Obama’s plan counts natural gas as “clean,” since even though it produces CO2, the emissio...
Helpful Energy Comparisons, Anyone? A Guide to Measuring Energy
Earlier this week, when I was writing about the potential for generating electricity from tidal power, something stood out to me. I don’t have a reliable resource for understanding energy quantities. I mean, how much is a terawatt — and don’t just tell me it’s 1,000 gigawatts, because that doesn’t help. Or, if I see that Michigan is installing 200 megawatts of wind power, it’s not immediately obvious (at least to me) whether that will satisfy a little or a lot of the state’s electricity needs.
Credit: Greg Hirson/flick
Here at Climate in Context, the blog posts typically cover recent climate change news. But I also think it’s a perfect place to experiment with some useful energy comparisons, for everyone’s benefit. Today, I’m keeping things really simple, using easy-to-understand examples. Next week, I’ll delve into some more surprising comparisons. I’d also love to hear your ideas on some effective ways to explain different amounts of energy. Eventually, we’ll choose the most compelling comparisons to develop a graphic — exactly the kind that I could have used the other day.
A note before I go any further: Units of power (like a watt) represent the rate at which energy is used or generated. When you want to know how much electricity an appliance has used, however, you need to consider how long it was running. If you’re interested in the actual calculations, I’ve included them at the bottom of the post.
Watts:
One watt (W) is actually pretty small, so let’s consider an ave...
Twitter Facebook YouTube Vimeo RSS