Tornadoes can happen anytime, anywhere in the world where conditions are right.

It just so happens that the U.S. is effectively the tornado capital of the world, with an average 1,200 tornadoes forming within its borders each year, according to the National Severe Storms Laboratory. Tornadoes have been observed on New Year’s Day, New Year’s Eve and every day in between, from California to Maryland, North Dakota to Texas.

With Climate Central’s Tornado Tracker, you can track tornado reports so far in the current year and investigate reports during past years. The tracker plots tornado reports from NOAA's Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla., and is updated multiple times a day to capture breaking events. (Keep in mind that tornadoes on the Tracker are just “reported” events, and have not yet been confirmed and that multiple reports can be sent in for the same tornado.)

Tornadoes happen when clashing air masses create an unstable environment, with some moisture thrown in there for good measure (though this doesn’t always result in a tornado—scientists don’t fully understand why). Generally, the prime time and location for this set of ingredients to come together is during spring and early summer, smack dab in the middle of the country—the proverbial Tornado Alley (though this is not a scientifically defined term). This is especially true for so-called supercell tornadoes, generally the strongest and most destructive, which are spawned by rotating thunderstorms.

May is generally the busiest month for tornadoes, but the most active month on record was April 2011, which saw 758 confirmed tornadoes (including April 27-28 outbreak in the Southeast that killed more than 300).

The peak of tornado season, or the time with the highest probability of at least one tornado occurring somewhere in the country is early June, but regionally the peak can vary. In Tornado Alley, for example, it can come anytime between late May and early July depending on the location.

Tornadoes are measured on the Enhanced Fujita scale, which runs from EF0 (weakest) to EF5 (strongest). The rating a tornado receives on that scale is determined by the amount and type of damage it does, which is evaluated by trained teams from the National Weather Service.

Those teams also determine how long the tornado was on the ground for—the average time is 5 minutes, according to the NSSL, but can be anywhere from seconds to hours—and how wide it was.

The bottom line is to be aware of any weather situations near you that could produce tornadoes, as well as any tornado watches or warnings that have been issue. (The first means that conditions are conducive to tornado formation, the second that one has been spotted on the ground or on radar.) And if there’s a tornado near you, get away from windows by heading to the basement or an interior room on the lowest floor and using a mattress or sturdy table to help shield you.

But all the accolades are distracting us from the reality that fossil fuels dominate China’s energy landscape, as they do in virtually every other country. Today, fossil fuels account for 87 percent of all energy used in China. And the focus on renewables also hides the fact that China’s reliance upon coal is predicted to keep growing.

Click image to enlarge

Coal, the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, accounts for 70 percent of energy used in China today and is responsible for about three quarters of electricity generation. 

• In just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants.
   
• From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again.
   
• At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years.  
   
• And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.

Helping China cut its coal emissions should be a top priority for all nations, including improving energy efficiencies further, using even more renewable energy, and deploying CO2 capture and storage technologies. The U.S. could go a long way to encouraging this by pursuing more aggressive CO2 reduction efforts at home. 

China burns more than 4 billion tons of coal each year in power plants, homes, and factories. By comparison, the U.S. burns less than 1 billion, and the entire European Union burns 600 million. China surpassed the U.S. to become the largest global CO2 emitter in 2007, and it is on track to double annual U.S. emissions by 2017. While projections for the U.S. and Europe are for steady or decreasing coal use in the coming decades, barring major policy shifts, China’s coal use is expected to keep increasing.

Economists predict that by 2040, China’s coal power fleet will be 50 percent larger than it is today. Once these coal-fired power plants are built, they typically run for 40 years, or longer, which means a commitment to decades of CO2 emissions. The climate impact of those emissions will be nearly impossible to reverse. 

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its estimate of the allowable total cumulative global CO2 emissions between 2012 and 2100 to prevent the global average temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius. Beyond 2C warming the impacts of climate change will be increasingly severe, including more and longer heat waves, damaging levels of sea level rise, increased heavy rains and flooding, more persistent and hotter droughts, and increasingly acidic oceans. 

If China’s coal use continues to increase as predicted, by 2040 China will have consumed more than a third of that global budget. Combined with the U.S. and the rest of the world, China’s emissions have the planet on a path to surpass the global budget by 2040. 

Some people say it is unfair to single out China, and that is not the intention here. Historically speaking, the U.S. is the largest CO2 emitter. And some of China’s emissions come from manufacturing goods that get exported to the U.S. and other countries. It is also true that the U.S. and the European Union have far higher emissions per capita, even as their overall emissions are slowly declining.  

But the reality is that China, because of its sheer size, is in a position to do more than any other country to stop the world from going off the proverbial climate cliff. With the current coal trajectory of China, all the windmills in the world won’t deliver our children a climate they can depend on.

Eric Larson is a senior scientist for Climate Central and a research engineer with the Energy Systems Analysis Group at the Princeton Environmental Institute. 

Related Content 
China’s Coal Reliance Reduces Life Span by 5.5 Years 
Report: Can U.S. Carbon Emissions Keep Falling? 
Scientists, U.N. Official Warn of ‘Unabated’ Coal Use 
Coal’s Slipping Grip: Death of a Georgia Coal Plant

Oftentimes scientists and journalists make the simplest of scientific concepts sound incredibly complicated. Take the difference between climate and weather, for example. The old adage is that “climate is what you expect, weather is what you get,” since day-to-day weather may depart significantly from average conditions. But that doesn't really tell you much about how climate is measured over the long-term, or when weather ends and climate begins. The explanation I like best comes from the comedian Stephen Colbert, when, during a segment with Climate Central's Heidi Cullen, he said: “Is not climate just made up of thousands of little weathers?”

Or consider this delightfully clear cartoon posted on Youtube that uses a unique analogy — a man walking his dog — to describe the differences between weather and climate. It's simple, to the point, and best of all, adorable. Check it out. 

Enhanced satellite view of Tropical Cyclone Phailin as it approached the Indian coast on Oct. 11.
Credit: NOAA

The history of the Bay of Bengal region is littered with examples of tragic storms, and this one has the potential to kill thousands and displace many more. The storm is expected to be the equivalent of a Category 4 or 5 hurricane at landfall, bringing a life-threatening storm surge, heavy rains, and high winds to a broad swath of northeastern India. (Although named differently, tropical cyclones have the same characteristics as hurricanes and typhoons.)

The Bay of Bengal, which borders India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka, has been home to the deadliest tropical cyclone disasters on Earth. A whopping 26 of the 35 deadliest tropical storms worldwide formed in the Bay of Bengal, the Capital Weather Gang blog reported. That includes Cyclone Nargis, which struck Myanmar in 2008, killing an estimated 140,000 people.

For example, the Bhola Cyclone that struck Bangladesh in 1970 killed a staggering 300,000 to 500,000. Since that storm and several other deadly cyclones and monsoon events in this part of the world, scientists and relief agencies have worked to build robust early warning and response networks to ensure residents receive storm warnings and have safe places to go. That has dramatically lowered the death toll from cyclones in the area, although such storms still kill far more people, on average, than storms of similar strength that strike more developed countries like the U.S.

Satellite-derived estimate of Tropical Cyclone Phailin's intensity, showing the weakening on Thursday and strengthening on Friday.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: University of Wisconsin.

Peter Webster, a professor at Georgia Tech who has been involved in early warning projects along the Bay of Bengal, mainly in Bangladesh, told Climate Central in an email on Friday that he does not have much confidence in the Indian disaster warning system. “The populace will receive some warning, although only a couple of days,” he said, noting that his research group has been providing 10 days worth of storm data to the Indian Meteorological Department since the storm first formed. “(They) don't seem to acknowledge our forecasts,” Webster said.

“The death toll may be expected to be large, unfortunately. Their disaster warning system is poor and communication even worse. If the tropical cyclone were to make landfall at high tide, then expect the surge to be greater and the loss of life more.”

Other reports have questioned India's weather forecasters for downplaying the storm surge threat from Cyclone Phailin.

Storm track and storm surge height forecast (in meters) for Tropical Cyclone Phailan.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: Indian Meteorological Department.

Tropical Cyclone Phailin may be comparable in size and strength to 1999’s Odisha Cyclone, if not a bit stronger than that storm, which also struck India’s east coast. That storm hit the coast near the city of Bhubaneswar as a Category 4 storm with 155 mph sustained winds, driving a surge nearly 20 feet high onto the coast.

As Jeff Masters of Weather Underground wrote, the Odisha Cyclone killed nearly 10,000 and caused $2.5 billion in damage. Masters said that if Phailin hits about 100 miles to the southwest of the 1999 storm, as is predicted by most computer models, it could cut down on the storm surge-related death toll, since the area is not quite as low-lying as the coastline is further northeast.

However, Hal Needham, a storm surge expert at Louisiana State University, warned that Phailin could generate the same level of storm surge that destroyed Galveston, Texas in 1900. “Tropical Cyclone Phailin has the potential to generate a surge at least 6 meters (20 feet) high. This surge height would be comparable to the storm surge generated by the Galveston Hurricane of 1900. This storm devastated Galveston Island, Texas, killing between 6,000 and 8,000 people in the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history,” Needham wrote on his blog.

Infrared satellite image showing Tropical Cyclone Phailin in the Bay of Bengal (circled).
Click image to enlarge. Credit: University of Wisconsin.

Mindful of what happened in 1999, reports indicate that the Indian government is mobilizing civil defense forces to evacuate at-risk residents and prepare storm shelters before Cyclone Phailin roars ashore. According to reports in the Hindustan Times and the BBC, at least 260,000 have been evacuated from coastal Odisha and Andhra Pradesh.

The BBC quoted Odisha’s disaster management minister as telling the NDTV news channel: “We are fighting against nature. We are better prepared this time; we learned a lot from 1999.”

Sea level rise due to climate change will only increase the risk of low-lying areas in Bangladesh and India to cyclone-related storm surge events. As weather.com reported, one small island that was involved in a dispute between India and Bangladesh disappeared entirely in 2010 due to rising water. 

While India braces for Phailin, the U.S. has enjoyed a record long nearly 8-year stretch without a landfalling Category 3 storm or stronger. 

Related Content
The Most Detailed Visuals of Hurricane Sandy, Revealed
Ongoing Coverage of Historic Hurricane Sandy
More Storms, More Extremes, More Heat, Says WMO
Bangladesh Has Seen the Enemy That Is Climate Change
Momentum Shifts on Climate Adaptation

Extreme weather, disappearing Western snowpack, wildfires, sea level rise, withering crops and vanishing wildlife habitat are all typically on the docket for discussion.

Credit: J.D. Pooley/Getty Images

But with the science becoming overwhelmingly clear that human greenhouse gas emissions are fueling climate change, a discussion at last weekend's SEJ conference in Chattanooga, Tenn., veered toward the philosophy of action and personal responsibility to do something — anything at all — to reduce our impact on the climate.

In other words, if we can do something about climate change, do each of us have a personal responsibility to act? On what philosophical ground should we take individual action?

Or, what would Jesus do about CO2?

That’s a tough question for a lot of conservative Christians to answer, particularly those who are uncomfortable with some scientific theories as well as uncertainty about the future that climate science implies, said Dawn Coppock, a Christian environmentalist and co-founder of the Christian environmental group LEAF, said Saturday at SEJ.

A new study by researchers at the University College of London and Yale University shows that evangelicals are less likely than non-evangelicals to believe that climate change is real, is causing harm and is caused by humans. Even so, the study shows that evangelicals are concerned about climate change and support a variety of policy measures to address it. In addition to LEAF, the Evangelical Environmental Network and other groups try to make the case to evangelicals for moral action on climate climate change. 

It’s not that conservative churchgoers who don't believe in climate change are uncaring about their environment, Coppock said. They have serious doubts about science in general, requiring Christian environmentalists to be creative in inspiring people to action.

Many conservative Christians feel estranged and alienated by science, she said.

“At LEAF, we don’t talk about climate change, we talk about Earth stewardship,” Coppock said. “We’re also drinking the Jesus Kool-Aid. Scientific arguments are persuasive to a whole lot of learning styles. We already have those people in the tent. You’re not going to convert those people (in the churches) by pummeling them with more science. Spiritual and moral concern does not require you to believe there’s global warming.”

Credit: Society of Environmental Journalists.

According to Coppock, Christians in the South who doubt the reality of manmade climate change may be convinced action is necessary by showing them the environmental challenges posed by something very clear: mountaintop-removal coal mining and the dramatic effects it has on the landscape, or East Tennessee’s high asthma rates caused in part by coal-fired power plant emissions, she said.

“From a Christian frame, I would say love my neighbor, and I was commanded to care for creation,” she said.

LEAF has been successful in reaching out to congregations about how they can be less wasteful and more energy efficient, leading to greater support for greener cities in the Bible Belt. 

“When you’ve got green cities, which Knoxville and Chattanooga and Nashville are working hard to be, then sooner or later, the state legislature has to listen,” she said. “That to me is how we get a hold of this problem. We do what we can do and we look at the people that can do more and we support and encourage those efforts.”

University of Tennessee philosophy lecturer Alex Feldt, who also spoke at SEJ, said any moral argument for action on climate change is complex and problematic because of the “collective action problem.”

But if humans have the power to mitigate climate change, he said they have a moral obligation to do so because much human suffering is at stake. Climate change threatens food and water supplies for millions across the globe, something studies show could lead to a much more violent world.

“Because climate change is collective, they look at it and say it doesn’t matter what I do,” Feldt said. It is important to find “moral arguments that can break through that and say, no, you actually have a responsibility … You’re morally responsible because other people are being significantly harmed.”

According to Feldt, a useful moral argument for action is to appeal to fairness and justice, because climate change will violate the human rights of a lot of people who can never be compensated.

“Information (about climate change) is part of the moral argument: We have an obligation to share this information and do this,” he said. “That’s the way to inspire without feeling paralyzed. You don’t have to go crazy green, live off the grid. You just need to talk.”

RELATED CONTENT
For Katharine Hayhoe, Climate Change Not a Leap of Faith
Romm's Book 'Language Intelligence' Insightful, Important
Climate & Conflict: Warmer World May be More Violent
Climate Projections More Dire, Confident from IPCC
IPCC Report Contains 'Grave” Cabon Budget Message

In this 3-D map of potential temperature, relatively cool air wraps around Sandy's core near the surface (purple and blue colors), while air parcels gain heat from moisture condensing into clouds and precipitation as they ascend through the storm’s core.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: UCAR.

Scientists based at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., used an advanced hurricane computer model to create mesmerizing images and animations that almost succeed in making the destructive and deadly storm appear to be a beautiful work of art.

The hurricane went through multiple phases. After rumbling through the Caribbean and striking Cuba, it veered north-northeastward just off the East Coast. The storm was officially classified as a post-tropical cyclone as of 7 p.m. EDT on Oct.29, 2012, only an hour before it made landfall, and after hurricane force winds had already begun buffeting the New York and New Jersey coastlines.

Climate Central posted the initial round of visualizations from this team in January. But now, a team including NCAR's Mel Shapiro, the National Center for Computing Applications (NCSA), Cray Computing, and the U.S. Office of Naval Research has produced addition simulations at even higher resolution. 

The visualizations show how Sandy’s life cycle was unique — going through multiple tropical and non-tropical phases as it interacted with the jet stream and surface weather features, such as a cold front draped along the East Coast.

Ultra-fine-scale simulations of Sandy’s near-surface winds (upper right) and cloud-top temperatures (lower right) closely resemble the observations derived from satellite data (at left).
Click image to enlarge. Credit: UCAR.

 

Robert Henson, a meteorologist and science writer with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder published a story about the new data, explaining the many never-before-seen atmospheric interactions that it reveals. 

“As Sandy moved northeast, contrasting air masses created a pseudo-frontal system along the edge of the Gulf Stream’s warm water. The vorticity, or circulation, along this frontal zone (picture an atmospheric rolling pin oriented along the Gulf Stream) was gradually ingested by Sandy and tilted into vertical vorticity (now picture the rolling pin standing on one end),” Henson wrote. “This helped the storm’s core to intensify, tighten, and regain its Category 2 status. It’s roughly similar to the smaller-scale process by which a supercell thunderstorm can ingest, tilt, and concentrate spinning air to produce storm-scale circulations (some of which can generate tornadoes).”

This intensification came as the storm was shoved westward into the U.S. by an area of blocking high pressure in northeastern Canada and a huge dip in the polar jet stream.

Henson makes an important point about Sandy’s winds, writing, “Even while Sandy was still a full-fledged hurricane, its circulation was so large that its northern edges were more akin to an extratropical (nontropical) cyclone. About 24 hours before Sandy made landfall, cool air began to wrap around its warm core, eventually surrounding it. Although this process meant Sandy was doomed as a tropical storm, it also may have intensified Sandy’s low-level winds.”

On a highly technical level, Henson notes that Sandy developed a rare “warm seclusion,” which typically occurs in strong winter storms over the ocean when pockets of warm air form within their cold cores. As a hurricane, Sandy had a warm core, meaning that temperatures near the storm’s center were warmer than the surrounding air, but colder air eventually worked its way into the center of the storm. “This is the first time such a dramatic warm seclusion has been documented in a landfalling U.S. hurricane,” Henson wrote. 

NCAR’s Shapiro worked with the NCSA to create the most detailed simulations of Sandy. In the computer model runs, each horizontal grid point was separated by just 1,600 feet, a far more fine-scale presentation than the typical grid boxes used in most operational computer models used for weather forecasting. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) highest-resolution operational hurricane forecast model, known as the HWRF, is currently being run at a resolution of 27 kilometers, meaning each horizontal grid point is separated by nearly 17 miles.

The calculations required 58 hours of time on a supercomputer known as “Blue Waters.“ Since the model includes 150 vertical layers, that means that weather conditions were calculated at more than 4 billion points for each second in a 96-hour simulation,” Henson wrote.

On a related path, NCAR researchers Tom Galarneau, Chris Davis and Mel Shapiro have analyzed Sandy through a separate round of high-resolution simulations and published their analysis in a scientific journal.

The researchers are seeking ways to incorporate their insights into operational forecasts through NOAA's Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program, which runs through 2019. That program is aimed at dramatically improving forecasters' ability to anticipate changes in tropical storm and hurricane intensity, which currently lags far behind their ability to accurately forecast a storm's eventual track.

Related Content
Research Spawns Stunning Hurricane Sandy Animations
Storm Intensity Forecasts Lag, Communities More At Risk
Ongoing Coverage of Historic Hurricane Sandy
Weather Service to Add Major Might to Computing Power 

On Tuesday at 12 a.m. ET, the federal government shut down after Congress failed to pass a budget. The shutdown starts on a day when Yosemite National Park turns 123 and NASA celebrates its 55th birthday, but that didn't keep either the park or the agency up and running. Many physical sites that fall under the federal domain, such as 401 units managed by the National Park Service, have closed their gates and “non-essential” government services have come to a halt. This includes a number of climate and weather services, particularly social media accounts. Read on to see which sites and accounts have gone dark and which still have the lights on.

In Seattle and Olympia, Wash., Sept. 28 was the wettest September day on record. In Seattle, 1.71 inches of rain fell, which was more rain than typically falls during the entire month.

Water vapor satellite image showing the “atmospheric river” extending from near Hawaii in the lower left to the Pacific Northwest in the upper right. Arrows indicate the direction of moisture transport.
Credit: U. Wisc. via Facebook/Stu Ostro.

The rainfall was the product of a long, snake-like plume of moisture that stretched from near Hawaii to the gulf of Alaska, and it aimed squarely at the Pacific Northwest. These moisture plumes are sometimes called “atmospheric rivers,” which are responsible for some of the most damaging flooding events along the U.S. West Coast, particularly in California.

Some of the moisture originally came from Typhoon Pabok, which was in the western Pacific several days ago, according to the National Weather Service.

The highest rainfall totals were recorded in mountainous areas, with 5-10 inches or more of rainfall commonplace in the higher elevations of Oregon and Washington. Lees Camp, Ore., for example, recorded 11.10 inches of rain from Sept. 27-30, and Tillamook, along the north Oregon coast, received 6.84 inches.

A weather station on Mount St. Helens recorded 15.30 inches of rain during the same period.

The Portland metro area saw between 3-4 inches of rainfall, which is extremely rare for this time of year. Oregon wine country was also affected, with more than 3 inches of rain falling in three days.

While the Pacific Northwest sees its fair share of storms, it is typically quite dry during September, and the storm was sufficient to break numerous records. 

In Portland, September 2013 is now the wettest such month on record, with 6.21 inches and counting at the downtown weather station, where records have been maintained since 1872. Typically, Portland receives just 1.47 inches of rain during the month.

Astoria, Ore., had received 10.51 inches of rain as of Monday morning, nearly 2 inches more than its previous mark set in September, 1906. Its normal monthly rainfall is just 2.14 inches.

The blitz of rain and strong, damaging winds also pushed September into record wettest territory in Eugene, Hillsboro, Salem, and Vancouver, Wash.

Winds reached speeds of greater than 80 mph in higher elevations of Oregon and Washington, knocking down trees and power lines. Winds in Seattle and Portland, which are at lower elevations, were much lower. (Cliff Mass has a comprehensive rundown on the strong wind reports over at his weather blog.)

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), up to half of the yearly precipitation along the West Coast comes in just a few atmospheric river events. A NOAA website on atmospheric rivers contains this fascinating statistic that illustrates just how much moisture can be transported by winds in the mid-to-upper atmosphere: “A strong atmospheric river transports an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to 7.5-15 times the average flow of liquid water at the mouth of the Mississippi River.”

A study published earlier this year found that climate change may contribute to the growth of atmospheric rivers, increasing the threat of associated flooding. 

Related Content
'Atmospheric River' Aims at West Coast; Warmup in Plains
Rich Moisture Feed Helped Blizzard Bury Northeast
Climate Change Has Intensified the Global Water Cycle
Atmospheric Rivers Grow, Causing Worse Floods Ahead

The EIA released the reports several days after the Environmental Protection Agency announced proposed regulations heavily capping carbon dioxide emissions on future coal-fired power plants in the U.S. Another set of rules is expected to follow next year, capping carbon emissions at existing coal-fired power plants.

Monthly generation from natural gas and coal.
Credit: EIA

Both proposed emission standards are part of the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan, which has been criticized by industry as a “war on coal.”

The EIA reports paint a complex picture for coal in the U.S., strongly suggesting that, for now, use of natural gas for generating electricity is generally increasing, but the opposite is occuring in Europe. The first report shows that rising coal exports to Europe are helping nations there reduce their consumption of natural gas and increase their burning of coal for electricity.

“In contrast to the United States, natural gas consumption in OECD-Europe has been generally declining since 2011, and coal consumption has been generally increasing,” the EIA report said. “A confluence of supply and demand factors, in both the natural gas and coal markets, as well as other economic constraints, have contributed to this phenomenon.”

Imports of natural gas and European natural gas production are decreasing while coal costs are low, coal imports from the U.S. and Colombia are increasing, and European utilities that can use coal-fired power plants are reducing their use of natural gas.

Such a favorable position for coal in Europe is partly thanks to the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, which prompted Germany to retire eight nuclear power plants there and use coal and renewables instead, according to the EIA. 

At the same time, low natural gas prices in the U.S. have made coal less competitive as a fuel for the production of electricity. U.S. coal exports are inexpensive and an attractive fuel for European utilities, the EIA report says. 

A coal-fired plant in southern Germany. Exports of coal to Europe are increasing, and with that, the consumption of natural gas there has decreased.
Credit: flickr/Ben Brooks

The other EIA report shows that as U.S. natural gas prices hit a low point in 2012, natural gas enjoyed an equal share of U.S. electricity generation with coal that April.

Coal quickly overtook natural gas again as chief fuel for power generation in the U.S. as natural gas prices began to rise, but despite lower natural gas consumption so far this year, natural gas power generation remains consistently higher than levels before 2012, the EIA report said.

William Fleckenstein, petroleum engineering professor at the Colorado School of Mines, said he is convinced the primary drivers for the use of natural gas are emissions regulations being placed on coal-fired power plants as a way to reduce overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change.

The EIA reports suggest that at least some of that coal burning that would have occurred in the U.S. is merely being displaced as Europe imports more American coal and gains a new appetite for electricity generated from coal.

Related Content 
New EPA Emissions' Regs Pack Little Punch on Climate
More than 1,000 Coal Plants Planned Worldwide 
Methane Leaks May Negate Benefits of Natural Gas 
Will Natural Gas Save Us from Climate Change? 

But we'll make it simple for you. Here’s what you need to know, in number and chart form.

Global average surface temperature change to date in degrees Celsius.
Credit: IPCC Working Group I.

1.6°F: Amount that globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperatures increased between 1901-2012.

0.54°F to 8.64°F: How high global average surface temperatures are likely to climb by 2081-2100 relative to 1986-2005 levels, depending on future amounts of greenhouse gases in the air. The report found that the global mean surface temperature change by 2100 is likely to exceed 2.7°F relative to the period betwen 1850-1900 in all but one of the emissions scenarios.

Map of multi-model mean results for different greenhouse gas concentration scenarios of annual mean surface temperature change in 2081– 2100.
Credit: IPCC Working Group I.

The report also found that the past 30 years have been the warmest three decades since instrument records began during the 19th century, and that in the Northern Hemisphere, the past 30 years have likely been the warmest in more than 1,000 years.

Decadal average surface temperatures.
Credit: IPCC Working Group I.

10.2 to 32 inches: How much mean global sea level is projected to increase by 2081-2100. The scenario with the highest amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere shows a mean sea level rise range between 21 and 38.2 inches, which would be devastating for numerous highly populated coastal cities at or near current sea levels, from New York to Hong Kong.

Projections of global mean sea level rise over the 21st century relative to 1986–2005 from the combination of the computer models with process-based models, for greenhouse gas concentration scenarios. The assessed likely range is shown as a shaded band. The assessed likely ranges for the mean over the period 2081–2100 for all scenarios are given as coloured vertical bars, with the corresponding median value given as a horizontal line.
Credit: IPCC Working Group I.

By comparison, the previous IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise of .7.1 to 23.2 inches by 2100, but it did not include the influence of rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet as well as portions of Antarctica because not enough information was known at the time.

0.07 inches per year to 0.13 inches per year: Rate of global average sea level rise during the 1901 to 2010 period compared to the 1993-2010 period.

The report found that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating as the oceans expand as they warm, and global ice sheets melt.

34 gigatons per year to 215 gigatones per year: Average rate of ice loss from Greenland during 1992-2001 and 2002-2011.

3.5 to 4.1 percent per decade: Annual mean Arctic sea ice extent rate of decline during 1979-2012. The report found that there is “medium confidence” that Arctic summer sea ice retreat and sea surface temperatures during the past 30 years were unusually high in the context of at least the past 1,450 years.

90 percent: Amount of the extra energy in the Earth’s climate system that is going into the oceans, where it is being stored, eventually to manifest itself in warming air temperatures.

11.7 percent per decade: The rate of decline in June snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere during the 1967-2012 period.

Global mean surface temperature increase as a function of cumulative total global CO2 emissions from various lines of evidence. Multi-model results from a hierarchy of climate-carbon cycle models for each RCP until 2100 are shown with coloured lines and decadal means (dots). Some decadal means are indicated for clarity (e.g., 2050 indicating the decade 2041−2050). Model results over the historical period (1860–2010) are indicated in black. The colored plume illustrates the multi-model spread over the four RCP scenarios and fades with the decreasing number of available models in RCP8.5. The multi-model mean and range simulated by CMIP5 models, forced by a CO2 increase of 1% per year (1% per year CO2 simulations), is given by the thin black line and grey area. For a specific amount of cumulative CO2 emissions, the 1% per year CO2 simulations exhibit lower warming than those driven by RCPs, which include additional non-CO2 drivers. All values are given relative to the 1861−1880 base period. Decadal averages are connected by straight lines.
Credit: IPCC Working Group I.

365 Gigatonnes: Amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production since 1750. Emissions from other sources, such as deforestation, yields cumulative manmade emissions of 545 gigatonnes of carbon since 1750.

Because CO2 has such a long atmospheric lifetime, with some molecules lingering in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, scientists have to take into account the cumulative total of CO2 emissions in order to project future warming.

This graphic shows cumulative CO2 emissions and the likely temperature changes associated with them based on the IPCC’s four greenhouse gas concentration scenarios. The bottom line is that holding global warming to at or below 3.6°F is going to be incredibly difficult. The report found that to have at least a 66 percent chance of holding warming to below that threshold will require cumulative CO2 missions from all manmade sources to stay below 1 trillion metric tons of carbon since 1861.

Related Content
Climate Projections More Confident, Dire From IPCC
Zeroing In On IPCC's Sea Level Rise & Warming 'Hiatus'
Experts Eye IPCC Reform as Report Nears

By Climate Central

Climate scientists are 95 percent certain that the greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing the climate to change. From 1901-2012, temperatures have risen 1.6°F. While this temperature change is the most commonly cited climate change indicator, there are numerous others that also show what climate change looks like. They range from rising seas to melting glaciers and ice sheets to changing ecosystems. In the above graphic, you can view 11 of these indicators and see how they’ve changed as the Earth has warmed.

These indicators are discussed in-depth in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, the first part of which will be released Sept. 27. The reports, which come out every five to six years, provide a comprehensive snapshot of how the planet is changing. While there are questions about the direction the IPCC should go after this release, the indicators discussed in the report clearly showcase how the planet is changing.

Related Content
This is What Global Warming Looks Like
Surging Seas: Sea Level Rise Analysis by Climate Central
Human Fingerprints Visible in Atmospheric Changes
Sea Level Rise 'Locking In' Quickly, Cities Threatened
The Globe's More Than 28-Year Warming Streak Continues
The Keeling Curve

The dais during the opening session of IPCC Working Group I (l-r): Lena Ek, Minister for the Environment, Sweden, IPCC WGI Co-Chairs Thomas Stocker and Dahe Qin, IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri, and Renate Christ, Secretary of the IPCC.
Credit: IISD.

Much of Tuesday's IPCC coverage took a broader look at the IPCC's purpose and scope as it enters its third decade of existence and prepares to publish its fifth major climate science assessment report.

The Associated Press filed a dispatch from Stockholm, which included the number of comments — more than 50,000 — that the authors have considered when drafting this portion of the report, known as the Working Group One report. “I know of no other document that has undergone this scrutiny,” Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the working group said. “It stands out as a reliable and indispensable source of knowledge about climate change.”

The AP story also noted that 60 percent of the authors of the forthcoming report were new to the IPCC process. That is significant, since the report's conclusions are expected to depart only slightly from the last major report in 2007, despite the changeover in authorship.

One question asked by several reporters was whether the massive tomes of dense information that the IPCC produces every six years or so are still valuable, or if shorter-turnaround, more targeted assessments on single topics of interest to policymakers would be more useful.

As NPR’s Richard Harris reported, the IPCC’s findings may not have the same impact that they once did, largely because there aren’t many new insights in the report.

Harris quoted Princeton climate scientist (and Climate Central board member) Michael Oppenheimer as saying, “There is a certain view now, and I tend to agree with it, that repeating the same story again and simply refining the findings in a way which makes marginal improvements isn't all that helpful.”

Reuters also took a big-picture look at the IPCC and as Myles Allen of Oxford University said in the story, “A blockbuster every six years is no longer really helpful.”

“Many experts instead favor more frequent and targeted reports, for instance about droughts, floods and heatwaves in the preceding year, to see if climate change is influencing their frequency or severity,” Reuters said.

Two fascinating pieces on scientific uncertainty as it pertains to the IPCC were published on Tuesday. The first was an opinion piece by Bloomberg View columnist Mark Buchanan, who wrote that the IPCC should be praised for acknowledging the uncertainties in climate science, rather than faulted.

“Skeptics savaged the (draft) report for revising slightly downward earlier estimates of the warming likely to be seen in the next two decades — as if trying to be accurate was an offense,” Buchanan wrote. “The scientists behind the IPCC report actually deserve credit for acknowledging their uncertainty.”

Seth Borenstein of the AP solicited views on scientific uncertainty from experts in a wide range of disciplines, from climatology to epidemeology. Borenstein noted that scientists perceive uncertainty differently than the public tends to.

“There’s a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean,” Borenstein wrote.

“That is an issue because this week, scientists from around the world have gathered in Stockholm for a meeting of a U.N. panel on climate change, and they will probably issue a report saying it is 'extremely likely' — which they define in footnotes as 95 percent certain — that humans are mostly to blame for temperatures that have climbed since 1951.

“Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 percent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn’t get on a plane that had only a 95 percent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.”

“But in science, 95 percent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty.”

Related Content
IPCC Roundup: Early Reports Focus on Warming 'Hiatus'
Study Ties Global Warming 'Hiatus' to Pacific Cooldown 
Why the Globe Hasn't Warmed Much the Past Decade 
IPCC Predictions: Then Vs. Now 
Report Says IPCC Needs to Address Melting Permafrost

Global-mean temperature (ºC) and CO2 (ppm) for 1971-2012.Temperature is represented in terms of deviation from 1980-1999 average. Both are based on annual mean values.The temperature for the hiatus period is highlighted.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Much of the early news has focused on the so-called global warming “hiatus” and how the document will treat the slowdown in the rate of global warming that has taken place during the past decade. Recent studies, some of which did not make it to publication until after the IPCC’s cutoff deadline of March 15, 2013, have pointed to a variety of possible causes. Some have to do with natural sources of climate variability, such as sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. Others concern manmade and natural emissions of particles that can temporarily cool the climate.

According to the BBC, many of the governments that weigh in on the wording of the report’s Summary for Policymakers, which is the most intensely scrutinized and widely-read part of the report, “are demanding a clearer explanation” for the warming slowdown than what was contained in report drafts.

“. . . This week, when the scientists will go through their summary line by line with officials from 195 governments, the pause is likely to be the focus of heated debate,” the BBC reported.

Bloomberg News suggests that the recent global warming slowdown poses a significant hurdle for scientists and policymakers seeking to raise awareness and promote action on global warming, since it introduces confusion about whether the globe is, in fact, warming. “The findings muddy the picture about how much carbon dioxide output is affecting the climate, giving ammunition to those who doubt the issue needs urgent action,” Bloomberg said.

Monte Morin of the Los Angeles Times also examined the global warming slowdown, playing up the possibility of a “heated debate” between report authors over what to say about it. “For the general public, the existence of the hiatus has been difficult to reconcile with reports of record-breaking summer heat and precedent-setting Arctic ice melts,” Morin wrote. “At the same time, those who deny the tenets of climate change science — that the burning of fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and warms it — have seized on the hiatus, calling it proof that global warming isn't real.”

Meanwhile, a story in The Guardian contained this sobering statistic, taken from the draft report, that “humanity has emitted about half a trillion tonnes of carbon by burning fossil fuels over the past 250 years, a process that has caused atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to rise by 40 percent. The world is now on target to release another half trillion tonnes in the next few decades, which could trigger a major jump in global temperatures.”

In addition, the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media has put together a helpful list of background reading ahead of the report’s publication. Those articles include a deep-dive into the issue of how sensitive the climate system is to increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, a key question dealt with in a section of the report that will be released on Friday.

The report's release will only include the contribution from the first working group of the IPCC, with two more working groups slated to publish their analyses into 2014, including a report on options to reduce and adapt to the impacts of global warming.

Related Content
Study Ties Global Warming 'Hiatus' to Pacific Cooldown
Why the Globe Hasn't Warmed Much the Past Decade
IPCC Predictions: Then Vs. Now
Report Says IPCC Needs to Address Melting Permafrost
 

On Thursday, Usagi measured sustained wind speeds of 160 mph. Those winds made it the strongest storm on Earth this year, besting Utor, which recorded wind speeds of 150 mph prior to making landfall in the Philippines in mid-August according to the Capital Weather Gang. NASA created a 3D satellite image of Usagi at its peak, showing an extremely well-developed eyewall.

Measurements by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center on Friday morning showed that Usagi had sustained winds of 150 mph with gusts up to 184 mph. That’s still enough to classify it as a supertyphoon or make it the equivalent of a Category 4 hurricane. The storm is also kicking up waves as high as 45 feet.

The storm is expected to deliver a sharp blow to Taiwan on Friday and Saturday before likely heading toward Hong Kong. Taiwan’s Central Weather Bureau has issued an “extremely torrential rain advisory” for the southeastern part of island. The storm could potentially drop 20-30 inches of rain on Taiwan over the next two days. That’s prompted the Defense Ministry to deploy more than 1,600 soldiers to areas most prone to landslides and flooding according to AFP.

A 3D image of Super-Typhoon Usagi on Sept. 19 shows heavy rain (red) at the base of the eyewall. The lightning flashes (ring of small orange dots) are displayed at 5 km altitude. That's near the freezing level in tropical cyclones and near the top of the heavy precipitation.

Credit: NASA/Owen Kelley

The Philippines could catch a glancing blow. Coastal villages have been evacuated ahead of the storm according to the Guardian. Utor struck the island chain last month, dropping 7.5 inches of rain.

Usagi will weaken further as it moves west, but most forecasts have it making landfall very close to Hong Kong by Sunday. Winds will likely be closer to 100 mph at that point, but the threat of torrential rain is still likely. The timing of landfall couldn't be worse. The storm is poised to make landfall during a mid-Autumn festival, which has been likened to a hurricane hitting the U.S. over Thanksgiving weekend. That could cause travel delays that ripple beyond areas immediately impacted by the storm. 

The forecast track of Usagi issued by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center on Friday.
Credit: Joint Typhoon Warning Center

Coastal flooding could be a concern in Hong Kong, which is home to roughly 7 million people. While its unknown at this point what magnitude of flooding the storm might cause, the Capital Weather Gang speculated a direct hit on Hong Kong could bring heavy rain and potentially devestating storm surge.

A recent study on flooding of the world’s largest coastal cities found that Hong Kong has $60.7 billion sitting at or below the 100-year flood level. Sea levels have risen in Hong Kong’s Victoria Harbor by a little more than an inch per decade since 1954. That same study noted that if nothing is done to improve Hong Kong’s flood defense, coastal flooding could put $140 billion at-risk if sea levels rise by 15.8 inches.

Related Content
Floods May Cost Coastal Cities $60 Billion a Year by 2050
Surging Seas: Sea Level Rise Analysis by Climate Central
Rising Sea Level May Trigger Groundwater Floods
Sea Level Rise 'Locking In' Quickly, Cities Threatened

More than 9 million commercial flights depart U.S. airports each year at a time when aviation accounts for the fastest-growing greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. transportation sector. The aviation industry contributes about 2 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, and the European Commission projects that by 2020 the global aviation emissions will be about 70 percent higher than they were in 2005 even with airlines' efforts to improve fuel efficiency. 

The International Council on Clean Transportation's ranking of U.S. airlines operating in 2010 based on its model of fuel efficiency.
Credit: ICCT

The ICCT used U.S. Department of Transportation airline data to determine that the least fuel efficient airline, Allegiant Air, is 26 percent less fuel efficient than the most efficient airline, Alaska Airlines, which flies its Boeing 737 jets to numerous remote Arctic locations — think Adak Island, Nome and Prudhoe Bay. Conversely, Allegiant, flies mainly decades-old McDonnell Douglas MD-80-series aircraft known for guzzling fuel.

ICCT’s analysis ranked the 15 mainline air carriers that were operating in the U.S. in 2010, including Continental Airlines, which merged with United Airlines the same year.

Spirit Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines tied for the second most-fuel efficient, followed by Continental Airlines and Southwest Airlines. Joining Allegiant among the least fuel efficient carriers are American Airlines, AirTran Airways, US Airways and Delta Air Lines.

The Department of Transportation data only go so far, however, and ICCT analysts say there are many unknowns about how fuel efficient airlines are overall. The group’s analysis was based on an economic model using only publicly reported data to compare airlines’ fuel efficiency relative to each other, said analysis co-author Daniel Rutherford, ICCT aviation and marine program director.

“In essence, anything that an airline does to reduce its fuel burn is properly credited in the top-level rankings providing they’re reporting their data properly,” he said. “The challenge then comes to explaining those results.”

The analysis suggested numerous factors that could affect fuel consumption: an aircraft’s age, engine design, size, seating density and use of fuel efficiency equipment such as “winglets” on the tips of a plane’s wings, and an airline’s operational procedures.

The study accounts for an airline’s total departures and the number of miles an airline flew each revenue-generating passenger (called revenue passenger miles, or RPMs). The more RPMs an airline provides per unit of fuel, the more efficient the airline.

“However, travelers’ ability to avail themselves of an airline’s RPMs is also important, with each airline striking a unique balance between getting passengers to their final destination as directly as possible with the need to provide access to all its potential customers,” the study said. “Carrying more, flying further and offering more flights — either by serving more airports or flying more frequently — all increase fuel burn.”

ICCT assigned each airline a fuel efficiency score, with 1 being the industry average and any score greater than that signifying an airline that is more fuel-efficient than average. The analysis showed a 26 percent gap between the least and most fuel efficient airlines.

The group called the analysis a “first step” in providing an accurate picture of the U.S. commercial aviation industry’s fuel efficiency, and plans to update the report annually as more information about airlines’ fuel efficiency becomes available.

“Unfortunately, few consistent standards exist to compel airlines to disclose publicly comprehensive data on fuel use and aircraft operation, particularly outside of the United States,” the analysis concluded. “While companies typically view such figures as proprietary, more complete and accurate data would help policymakers make sounder decisions about this highly complex industry.”

Related Content 
Flights in the Pacific Fingered as Big Climate Culprit 
Delta Becomes First U.S. Airline to Add E.U. Emissions Fee 
Court Upholds Cap-and-Trade Program for Airlines, but Ruling May be Up in the Air