A new study on Mars is shining a light on the Earth's own climate mysteries. Image via UH.edu

Scientists at the University of Houston have found a new understanding of climate and weather on Mars.

The study, which was published in a new paper in AGU Advances and will be featured in AGU’s science magazine EOS, generated the first meridional profile of Mars’ radiant energy budget (REB). REB represents the balance or imbalance between absorbed solar energy and emitted thermal energy across latitudes. An energy surplus can lead to global warming, and a deficit results in global cooling, which helps provide insights to Earth's atmospheric processes too. The profile of Mars’ REB influences weather and climate patterns.

The study was led by Larry Guan, a graduate student in the Department of Physics at UH's College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics under the guidance of his advisors Professor Liming Li from the Department of Physics and Professor Xun Jiang from the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and other planetary scientists. UH graduate students Ellen Creecy and Xinyue Wang, renowned planetary scientists Germán Martínez, Ph.D. (Houston’s Lunar and Planetary Institute), Anthony Toigo, Ph.D. (Johns Hopkins University) and Mark Richardson, Ph.D. (Aeolis Research), and Prof. Agustín Sánchez-Lavega (Universidad del País, Vasco, Spain) and Prof. Yeon Joo Lee (Institute for Basic Science, South Korea) also assisted in the project.

The profile of Mars’ REB is based on long-term observations from orbiting spacecraft. It offers a detailed comparison of Mars’ REB to that of Earth, which has shown differences in the way each planet receives and radiates energy. Earth shows an energy surplus in the tropics and a deficit in the polar regions, while Mars exhibits opposite behavioral patterns.

The surplus is evident in Mars’ southern hemisphere during spring, which plays a role in driving the planet’s atmospheric circulation and triggering the most prominent feature of weather on the planet, global dust storms. The storms can envelop the entire planet, alter the distribution of energy, and provide a dynamic element that affects Mars’ weather patterns and climate.

The research team is currently examining long-term energy imbalances on Mars and how it influences the planet’s climate.

“The REB difference between the two planets is truly fascinating, so continued monitoring will deepen our understanding of Mars’ climate dynamics,” Li says in a news release.

The global-scale energy imbalance on Earth was recently discovered, and it contributes to global warming at a “magnitude comparable to that caused by increasing greenhouse gases,” according to the study. Mars has an environment that differs due to its thinner atmosphere and lack of anthropogenic effects.

“The work in establishing Mars’ first meridional radiant energy budget profile is noteworthy,” Guan adds. “Understanding Earth’s large-scale climate and atmospheric circulation relies heavily on REB profiles, so having one for Mars allows critical climatological comparisons and lays the groundwork for Martian meteorology.”

The world can't keep on with what it's doing and expect to reach its goals when it comes to climate change. Radical innovations are needed at this point, writes Scott Nyquist. Photo via Getty Images

Only radical innovation can get the world to its climate goals, says this Houston expert

guest column

Almost 3 years ago, McKinsey published a report arguing that limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels was “technically achievable,” but that the “math is daunting.” Indeed, when the 1.5°C figure was agreed to at the 2015 Paris climate conference, the assumption was that emissions would peak before 2025, and then fall 43 percent by 2030.

Given that 2022 saw the highest emissions ever—36.8 gigatons—the math is now more daunting still: cuts would need to be greater, and faster, than envisioned in Paris. Perhaps that is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted March 20 (with “high confidence”) that it was “likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century.”

I agree with that gloomy assessment. Given the rate of progress so far, 1.5°C looks all but impossible. That puts me in the company of people like Bill Gates; the Economist; the Australian Academy of Science, and apparently many IPCC scientists. McKinsey has estimated that even if all countries deliver on their net zero commitments, temperatures will likely be 1.7°C higher in 2100.

In October, the UN Environment Program argued that there was “no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place” and called for “an urgent system-wide transformation” to change the trajectory. Among the changes it considers necessary: carbon taxes, land use reform, dietary changes in which individuals “consume food for environmental sustainability and carbon reduction,” investment of $4 trillion to $6 trillion a year; applying current technology to all new buildings; no new fossil fuel infrastructure. And so on.

Let’s assume that the UNEP is right. What are the chances of all this happening in the next few years? Or, indeed, any of it? President Obama’s former science adviser, Daniel Schrag, put it this way: “ Who believes that we can halve global emissions by 2030?... It’s so far from reality that it’s kind of absurd.”

Having a goal is useful, concentrating minds and organizing effort. And I think that has been the case with 1.5°C, or recent commitments to get to net zero. Targets create a sense of urgency that has led to real progress on decarbonization.

The 2020 McKinsey report set out how to get on the 1.5°C pathway, and was careful to note that this was not a description of probability or reality but “a picture of a world that could be.” Three years later, that “world that could be” looks even more remote.

Consider the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter. In 2021, 79 percent of primary energy demand (see chart) was met by fossil fuels, about the same as a decade before. Globally, the figures are similar, with renewables accounting for just 12.5 percent of consumption and low-emissions nuclear another 4 percent. Those numbers would have to basically reverse in the next decade or so to get on track. I don’t see how that can happen.

No alt text provided for this image

Credit: Energy Information Administration

But even if 1.5°C is improbable in the short term, that doesn’t mean that missing the target won’t have consequences. And it certainly doesn’t mean giving up on addressing climate change. And in fact, there are some positive trends. Many companies are developing comprehensive plans for achieving net-zero emissions and are making those plans part of their long-term strategy. Moreover, while global emissions grew 0.9 percent in 2022, that was much less than GDP growth (3.2 percent). It’s worth noting, too, that much of the increase came from switching from gas to coal in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; that is the kind of supply shock that can be reversed. The point is that growth and emissions no longer move in lockstep; rather the opposite. That is critical because poorer countries are never going to take serious climate action if they believe it threatens their future prosperity.

Another implication is that limiting emissions means addressing the use of fossil fuels. As noted, even with the substantial rise in the use of renewables, coal, gas, and oil are still the core of the global energy system. They cannot be wished away. Perhaps it is time to think differently—that is, making fossil fuels more emissions efficient, by using carbon capture or other technologies; cutting methane emissions; and electrifying oil and gas operations. This is not popular among many climate advocates, who would prefer to see fossil fuels “stay in the ground.” That just isn’t happening. The much likelier scenario is that they are gradually displaced. McKinsey projects peak oil demand later this decade, for example, and for gas, maybe sometime in the late 2030s. Even after the peak, though, oil and gas will still be important for decades.

Second, in the longer term, it may be possible to get back onto 1.5°C if, in addition to reducing emissions, we actually remove them from the atmosphere, in the form of “negative emissions,” such as direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in power and heavy industry. The IPCC itself assumed negative emissions would play a major role in reaching the 1.5°C target; in fact, because of cost and deployment problems, it’s been tiny.

Finally, as I have argued before, it’s hard to see how we limit warming even to 2°C without more nuclear power, which can provide low-emissions energy 24/7, and is the largest single source of such power right now.

None of these things is particularly popular; none get the publicity of things like a cool new electric truck or an offshore wind farm (of which two are operating now in the United States, generating enough power for about 20,000 homes; another 40 are in development). And we cannot assume fast development of offshore wind. NIMBY concerns have already derailed some high-profile projects, and are also emerging in regard to land-based wind farms.

Carbon capture, negative emissions, and nuclear will have to face NIMBY, too. But they all have the potential to move the needle on emissions. Think of the potential if fast-growing India and China, for example, were to develop an assembly line of small nuclear reactors. Of course, the economics have to make sense—something that is true for all climate-change technologies.

And as the UN points out, there needs to be progress on other issues, such as food, buildings, and finance. I don’t think we can assume that such progress will happen on a massive scale in the next few years; the actual record since Paris demonstrates the opposite. That is troubling: the IPCC notes that the risks of abrupt and damaging impacts, such as flooding and crop yields, rise “with every increment of global warming.” But it is the reality.

There is one way to get us to 1.5°C, although not in the Paris timeframe: a radical acceleration of innovation. The approaches being scaled now, such as wind, solar, and batteries, are the same ideas that were being discussed 30 years ago. We are benefiting from long-term, incremental improvements, not disruptive innovation. To move the ball down the field quickly, though, we need to complete a Hail Mary pass.

It’s a long shot. But we’re entering an era of accelerated innovation, driven by advanced computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning that could narrow the odds. For example, could carbon nanotubes displace demand for high-emissions steel? Might it be possible to store carbon deep in the ocean? Could geo-engineering bend the curve?

I believe that, on the whole, the world is serious about climate change. I am certain that the energy transition is happening. But I don’t think we are anywhere near to being on track to hit the 1.5°C target. And I don’t see how doing more of the same will get us there.

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston-led project earns $1 million in federal funding for flood research

team work

A team from Rice University, the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University have been awarded a National Science Foundation grant under the CHIRRP—or Confronting Hazards, Impacts and Risks for a Resilient Planet—program to combat flooding hazards in rural Texas.

The grant totals just under $1 million, according to a CHIRRP abstract.

The team is led by Avantika Gori, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice. Other members include Rice’s James Doss-Gollin, Andrew Juan at Texas A&M University and Keri Stephens at UT Austin.

Researchers from Rice’s Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disasters Center and Ken Kennedy Institute, Texas A&M’s Institute for A Disaster Resilient Texas and the Technology & Information Policy Institute at UT Austin are part of the team as well.

Their proposal includes work that introduces a “stakeholder-centered framework” to help address rural flood management challenges with community input.

“Our goal is to create a flood management approach that truly serves rural communities — one that’s driven by science but centers around the people who are impacted the most,” Gori said in a news release.

The project plans to introduce a performance-based system dynamics framework that integrates hydroclimate variability, hydrology, machine learning, community knowledge, and feedback to give researchers a better understanding of flood risks in rural areas.

The research will be implemented in two rural Texas areas that struggle with constant challenges associated with flooding. The case studies aim to demonstrate how linking global and regional hydroclimate variability with local hazard dynamics can work toward solutions.

“By integrating understanding of the weather dynamics that cause extreme floods, physics-based models of flooding and AI or machine learning tools together with an understanding of each community’s needs and vulnerabilities, we can better predict how different interventions will reduce a community’s risk,” Doss-Gollin said in a news release.

At the same time, the project aims to help communities gain a better understanding of climate science in their terms. The framework will also consider “resilience indicators,” such as business continuity, transportation access and other features that the team says more adequately address the needs of rural communities.

“This work is about more than flood science — it’s also about identifying ways to help communities understand flooding using words that reflect their values and priorities,” said Stephens. “We’re creating tools that empower communities to not only recover from disasters but to thrive long term.”

Can the Texas grid handle extreme weather conditions across regions?

Guest Column

From raging wildfires to dangerous dust storms and fierce tornadoes, Texans are facing extreme weather conditions at every turn across the state. Recently, thousands in the Texas Panhandle-South Plains lost power as strong winds ranging from 35 to 45 mph with gusts upwards of 65 mph blew through. Meanwhile, many North Texas communities are still reeling from tornadoes, thunderstorms, and damaging winds that occurred earlier this month.

A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that Texas led the nation with the most billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2023, while a report from Texas A&M University researchers indicates Texas will experience twice as many 100-degree days, 30-50% more urban flooding and more intense droughts 15 years from now if present climate trends persist.

With the extreme weather conditions increasing in Texas and nationally, recovering from these disasters will only become harder and costlier. When it comes to examining the grid’s capacity to withstand these volatile changes, we’re past due. As of now, the grid likely isn’t resilient enough to make do, but there is hope.

Where does the grid stand now?

Investment from utility companies have resulted in significant improvements, but ongoing challenges remain, especially as extreme weather events become more frequent. While the immediate fixes have helped improve reliability for the time being, it won't be enough to withstand continuous extreme weather events. Grid resiliency will require ongoing efforts over one-time bandaid approaches.

What can be done?

Transmission and distribution infrastructure improvements must vary geographically because each region of Texas faces a different set of hazards. This makes a one-size-fits-all solution impossible. We’re already seeing planning and investment in various regions, but sweeping action needs to happen responsibly and quickly to protect our power needs.

After investigators determined that the 2024 Smokehouse Creek fire (the largest wildfire in Texas history) was caused by a decayed utility pole breaking, it raised the question of whether the Panhandle should invest more in wrapping poles with fire retardant material or covering wires so they are less likely to spark.

In response, Xcel Energy (the Panhandle’s version of CenterPoint) filed its initial System Resiliency Plan with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, with proposed investments to upgrade and strengthen the electric grid and ensure electricity for about 280,000 homes and businesses in Texas. Tailored to the needs of the Texas Panhandle and South Plains, the $539 million resiliency plan will upgrade equipment’s fire resistance to better stand up to extreme weather and wildfires.

Oncor, whose territories include Dallas-Fort Worth and Midland-Odessa, analyzed more than two decades of weather damage data and the impact on customers to identify the priorities and investments needed across its service area. In response, it proposed investing nearly $3 billion to harden poles, replace old cables, install underground wires, and expand the company's vegetation management program.

What about Houston?

While installing underground wires in a city like Dallas makes for a good investment in grid resiliency, this is not a practical option in the more flood-prone areas of Southeast Texas like Houston. Burying power lines is incredibly expensive, and extended exposure to water from flood surges can still cause damage. Flood surges are also likely to seriously damage substations and transformers. When those components fail, there’s no power to run through the lines, buried or otherwise.

As part of its resiliency plan for the Houston metro area, CenterPoint Energy plans to invest $5.75 billion to strengthen the power grid against extreme weather. It represents the largest single grid resiliency investment in CenterPoint’s history and is currently the most expensive resiliency plan filed by a Texas electric utility. The proposal calls for wooden transmission structures to be replaced with steel or concrete. It aims to replace or strengthen 5,000 wooden distribution poles per year until 2027.

While some of our neighboring regions focus on fire resistance, others must invest heavily in strengthening power lines and replacing wooden poles. These solutions aim to address the same critical and urgent goal: creating a resilient grid that is capable of withstanding the increasingly frequent and severe weather events that Texans are facing.

The immediate problem at hand? These solutions take time, meaning we’re likely to encounter further grid instability in the near future.

---

Sam Luna is director at BKV Energy, where he oversees brand and go-to-market strategy, customer experience, marketing execution, and more.

The longest conveyer belt in the U.S. is moving sand in Texas

The Dune Express

It's longer than the width of Rhode Island, snakes across the oil fields of the southwest U.S. and crawls at 10 mph – too slow for a truck and too long for a train.

It's a new sight: the longest conveyer belt in America.

Atlas Energy Solutions, a Texas-based oil field company, has installed a 42-mile long conveyer belt to transport millions of tons of sand for hydraulic fracturing. The belt the company named “The Dune Express” runs from tiny Kermit, Texas, and across state borders into Lea County, New Mexico. Tall and lanky with lids that resemble solar modules, the steel structure could almost be mistaken for a roller coaster.

In remote West Texas, there are few people to marvel at the unusual machine in Kermit, a city with a population of less than 6,000, where the sand is typically hauled by tractor-trailers. During fracking, liquid is pumped into the ground at a high pressure to create holes, or fractures, that release oil. The sand helps keep the holes open as water, oil and gas flow through it.

But moving the sand by truck is usually a long and potentially dangerous process, according to CEO John Turner. He said massive trucks moving sand and other industrial goods are a common site in the oil-rich Permian Basin and pose a danger to other drivers.

“Pretty early on, the delivery of sand via truck was not only inefficient, it was dangerous,” he said.

The conveyor belt, with a freight capacity of 13 tons, was designed to bypass and trudge alongside traffic.

Innovation isn't new to the oil and gas industry, nor is the idea to use a conveyor belt to move materials around. Another conveyer belt believed to be the world’s longest conveyor — at 61 miles long — carries phosphorous from a mine in Western Sahara on the northwest coast of Africa, according to NASA Earth Observatory.

When moving sand by truck became a nuisance, an unprecedented and risky investment opportunity arose: constructing a $400 million machine to streamline the production of hydraulic fracturing. The company went public in March 2023, in part, to help pay for the conveyor belt and completed its first delivery in January, Turner said.

The sand sits in a tray-shaped pan with a lid that can be taken off at any point, but most of it gets offloaded into silos near the Texas and New Mexico border. Along its miles-long journey, the sand is sold and sent to fracking companies who move it by truck for the remainder of the trip.

Keeping the rollers on the belt aligned and making sure it runs smoothly are the biggest maintenance obstacles, according to Turner. The rollers are equipped with chips that signal when it's about to fail and need to be replaced. This helps prevent wear and tear and keep the machine running consistently, Turner said.

The belt cuts through a large oil patch where environmentalists have long raised concerns about the industry disturbing local habitats, including those of the sagebrush lizard, which was listed as an endangered species last year by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“In addition to that, we know that the sand will expedite further drilling nearby,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. “We could see more drilling than we otherwise would, which means more air pollution, more spills than we otherwise would.”

The Dune Express currently runs for about 12 to 14 hours a day at roughly half capacity but the company expects to it to be rolling along at all hours later this year.

In New Mexico, Lea County Commissioner Brad Weber said he hopes the belt alleviates traffic on a parallel highway where car crashes are frequent.

“I believe it’s going to make a very positive impact here,” he said.