Monthly Archives: November 2008

November 4, 2008 | 11:53 AM | By

A New Slogan for Reno

Reno, NV has long laid claim to being “The Biggest Little City in the World.” Now it could claim to be one of the fastest-warming towns in America.

Reno Arch

According to a survey of US cities from Environment America,  Reno averaged 4 degrees (Fahrenheit) above”normal” for the calendar year 2007. Citing data from the National Climatic Data Center, the report said that temperatures tended above normal for most of the nation (“normal” is defined as the 30-year average from 1971-2000), but few cities made the exclusive plus-four-degree club.

More telling, perhaps, is the average minimum temperature (overnight low), which clocked in at an eyebrow-raising 5.5 degrees above normal in Reno. Climatologists have noted that throughout the West, “T-minimums” (overnight lows) have been rising almost twice as fast as daytime highs, partially obscuring for many the sensation that things are warming up.

Environment America can be justifiably challenged for implying that one year’s worth of temperature records is any indication of generalized long-term warming. It isn’t. The group takes the position that the warm 2007 was part of a broader trend:

“Between 2000 and 2007, the average temperature was at least 0.5 degrees F above the 30-year average at 228 (89%) of the stations examined (nationwide).”

Reno also made the hot list for cities that showed the most deviation from normal (3.5 degrees F), during the eight-year period 2000-2007. Of all the data collected in the report, this is the most useful number to use in making a case for a persistent warming trend. Skeptics might argue that even eight years of data can be misleading and they’d be right–but other studies have been more than sufficient to confirm that the West is warming. The debate has largely shifted to what to do about it.

Photo courtesy of: RSCVA & VisitRenoTahoe.com.

FILED UNDER: Desert, Temperature
November 3, 2008 | 4:05 PM | By

The Mystery Cities in Prop 10

Every ballot measure has its fine print and every piece of legislation its earmarks and “ornaments.” Prop 10, officially the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act is typical of this time-honored tradition, except in one respect. Usually these quirks can be explained by the people promoting them.

On page 16 of the measure, Prop 10 specifically allocates multi-million-dollar grants to each of eight cities in California. Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, Irvine, San Francisco, Oakland, Fresno and Sacramento (listed in that order) would each get $25 million:

“…for the purpose of capital projects and operating expenses promoting and demonstrating the actual use of alternative and renewable energy in park, recreation and cultural venues, including the education of students, residents and the visiting public about these technologies and practices.”

Seems straightforward enough–except nobody seems to know how these eight cities were chosen. It’s not merely a list of the state’s eight largest cities. It’s close, except that San Jose (#3) is conspicuously missing but Irvine (#17) makes the cut.

John Dunlap, former head of the state Air Resources Board and a paid consultant to the Prop 8 campaign, appeared to be stumped when I asked him for the rationale. His best  guess was that they might be locations with significant transportation infrastructure, such as major port facilities. Again, the mystery of Irvine…and Fresno isn’t quite the Rotterdam of the West Coast.

I called the official office of “Yes on 10” and a media representative told me that she thought the cities were chosen for “geographic distribution” but admitted that she hadn’t been asked before. She promised to get back to me with a definitive answer. That was last week. Election Day is tomorrow. If Prop 10 goes down to defeat, it won’t matter. If it passes, it’ll be even more important to have an answer.

FILED UNDER: Government & Business, Power, Air, natural gas, Policy, renewable energy
November 1, 2008 | 9:50 PM | By

Methane Takes its Turn in the Spotlight

No sooner had I posted a piece about “The Other Greenhouse Gases,” than more new data bubbled up about one of them; methane.

Benicia Refinery

According to a study published by researchers at MIT, there was a global spike in atmospheric methane last year. The increase, on the order of millions of metric tons, was uniform around the world, not concentrated around major methane emitters, as one might expect. In other words, “background” methane levels are up all over, so that the atmospheric concentration is nearly 1800 parts per billion.

That’s a much lower concentration than carbon dioxide, which stands at about 385 parts per million. Methane also breaks down faster in the atmosphere. But it worries climatologists because it is far more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas; anywhere from 25 to 50 times more harmful, depending on how you measure it. Researchers Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn say atmospheric methane levels have more than tripled since the Industrial Revolution but has held steady in recent years. Recently something has thrown it out of balance but the MIT team could only speculate about possible reasons.

Methane escapes from a combination of both natural and human-induced sources. It leaks from oil & gas industry infrastructure and landfills, and is produced by livestock (and human) digestion. It’s also released by marshes and rice paddies. California is a major rice producer but the rice fields’ share of total U.S. methane emissions is relatively tiny.

Climate Watch is preparing an upcoming feature on  methane and climate change. Listen for it on The California Report in November.

FILED UNDER: Power, Agriculture, Air, methane, Wetlands