The Obama Administration seems to be pulling back, on front after front, in the face of economic challenges, sobering poll numbers, and steadfast Republican obstinacy. Whether on health care, jobs promoting legislation, EPA regulation of pollutants, and/or energy/climate policy, the political powers that be within the Obama White House have determined that ‘tactical retreats’ toward even more incremental policy concepts is the path forward in an illusive search for bipartisanship policy making with an elusive (and recalcitrant) Republican minority. Watering down already weakened (and inadequate) policy constructs and approaches is path toward increased problems, rather than solutions, on political, economic, and climate terms. Rather than retreat toward ever weaker policy concepts, President Obama would well serve the nation through a step back to consider the totality of the environment with then a strong and aggressive step forward with stronger proposals to seize the huge opportunities that lie before use with real solutions to our jobs, economic, health care, energy, and climate challenges.
When it comes to health care, in brief, the Administration is putting forward a weakened health care proposal that simply ignores the most sensible path forward on economic competitiveness and health care effectiveness terms (single-payer) and abandons any meaningful move forward toward an improved health care system with serious public option opportunities for all Americans (whether employed by government, in large or small firms, self-employed, or otherwise). Not only would a serious “public option” option help provide more cost effective and higher-quality health care, it is a move that the majority of the American public supports and passage of such legislation would represent front-page headline “Change” to demonstrate Obama Administration and Democratic Party-dominated Congressional leadership to change Americans’ lives for the better even in the face of a Republican Party stuck on “No”. Thus, the right thing to do on moral and economic grounds is also the right move politically. Win, win, win …
The “strong” option, of four, reportedly abandons an economy-wide cap on carbon pollution emissions with a focus on transportation and electricity. While these represent the majority of US emissions, this might well (note that full proposals are not in hand) ignore the quite real pollution impacts due to land-use patterns and agriculture — and, perhaps, even more importantly the low-cost, high-payoff opportunities to improve agricultural production while reducing (significantly) pollution loads. And, well, there is a reason that “strong” is in quotation marks because this is likely to be a weak proposal in terms of proposed emissions reductions and, even more so, in terms of support for traditional fossil-fuel electricity production (especially polluting coal). From there, the options go downhill faster than Bode Miller. [Photo courtesy of Jon Wick.]
President Obama (and the huge pool of highly competent and knowledgeable energy/environmental appointees and staff) has a grasp of the seriousness of our climate disruption challenges, understands that there are those determined to misrepresent science, knows very well that other nations (such as the People’s Republic of China) are leaving us (the U.S.) behind in the 21st century clean-energy revolution, and knows that climate change mitigation offers huge economic opportunity even while providing an insurance policy against the (very real) potential for utter catastrophe.
Rather than retreating toward weakened policies, unilaterally compromising with huge subsidies for polluting industries, it is time to step back and come out with an aggressive Clean Energy Jobs set of proposals that will put millions of Americans back to work (rapidly), turn the economic situation around, set the stage for the United States to leap ahead in the economic engine that the clean-energy revolution represents while, oh by the way, drastically reducing U.S. carbon pollution faster and well beyond the levels for the next few decades proposed by any Congressional legislation. And, oh by the way, that reduced pollution feeds back into health care: lowering fossil-fuel pollution will lower health care costs as the burning of fossil fuel costs the United States (according to the National Academy of Sciences) more than $100 billion per year in additional health care costs.
To those unengaged in energy discussions, the previous paragraph might seem outlandish even though it is solid. We, the United States, can
President Obama has a choice. Right now the choice that his advisors seem to favor: retreating to lowest common denominator incrementalism that won’t solve America’s problems, that won’t truly set the stage for a more secure and prosperous future, and won’t seize the quite real opportunities before us (the U.S.). Another path exists, the choice to listen to Robin Williams’ sage advice: Carpe diem: Seize the Day.
The question facing world leaders today is not what to do. It is whether to do it. There are two goals to meet: full employment and sustainable energy. That’s technically complex. But the complexities are complexities of engineering, organisation and politics. They are not complexities of economics or finance.
President Obama should Seize the Day, seize the reins of leadership and challenge not just Congress, but all Americans, toward something better, to use multiple win opportunities to create a more prosperous and stronger America.
The Washington Post editorial board came out with a strong statement about climate change that, even with its few errors, would be an important statement if it weren’t such a monumental travesty in the face of actual Washington Post editorial policy and practices.
THE EARTH is warming. A chief cause is the increase in greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere. Humans are at least in part responsible, because the oil, gas and coal that we burn releases these gases. If current trends persist, it’s likely that in coming decades the globe’s climate will change with potentially devastating effects for billions of people.
Contrary to what you may have read lately, there are few reputable scientists who would disagree with anything in that first paragraph. Yet suddenly we’re hearing that climate change is in doubt and that action to combat it is unlikely. What’s going on?
The Post‘s editorial board simply does not seem willing to acknowledge its responsibility for a share of the confusion
The Washington Post editorial board’s glazing over of the Post’s complicity in the confusion about climate science is simply astounding. Publishing George Will, giving front-page prominence to minor footnote issues, frequent quotation of Marc Morano, etc are the sorts of journalistic “he says, she says” that contribute to a public belief of confused science that is, well, simply not matched within the scientific community.
The Post‘s editorial reaches a reasonable conclusion: that we should adopt a price on carbon and work to reduce carbon emissions for many, many reasons including ‘insurance’ in the event that the world’s scientists actually are right about the subjects that they have spent their lives studying.
We can only hope that The Post‘s editorial board will also reach a reasonable conclusion about their editorial policy: that they should adopt a practice of ensuring their opinion pieces on climate are factual and not misleading, with the operative assumption that the world’s scientists actually are right about the subjects that they have spent their lives studying.
Shockingly, however, in their discussion of “what’s going on” they completely neglect to mention the fact that The Washington Post—home of one of the most influential op-ed pages in America—consistently publishes climate denialist tracts that seek to deliberately mislead the paper’s audience.
Something the world certainly won’t miss when the Post and the vast majority of its fellow big city dailies are out of business is this kind of prissy evasion. If the rationale for publishing liars in the Post’s opinion section is that it’s important for the opinion section to represent the full range of the debate, then the Post needs to take into account the fact that this editorial stance is part of “what’s going on” in the climate debate. Alternatively, if they want to take the stance that accuracy matters to the owners and editors of the Washington Post then they need to stand up to inaccurate and misleading writing in their own pages.
Since diving into the deep end when it comes to energy issues, almost every day sees new fascinating concepts, approaches, and technologies. Fascinating … exciting … even hope inspiring at times. And, as well, as the passion builds, so many of these are truly Energy COOL.
Innovative combinations of rather straightforward, well-in-hand, technologies can offer real solutions to problems while creating new opportunities. Several weeks ago, a group of researchers published an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences documenting how relatively low-powered solar systems offer the potential to increase food supplies in impoverished arid regions while reducing demands for fertilizers and other costly (in fiscal and other terms)
that solar-powered drip irrigation significantly augments both household income and nutritional intake, particularly during the dry season, and is cost effective compared to alternative technologies.
Over the decades, green revolution and otherwise, irrigation has been shown to greatly increase agricultural productivity. Drip irrigation is spreading rapidly in Africa, with significant benefits.
Drip irrigation delivers water (and fertilizer) directly to the roots of plants, thereby improving soil moisture conditions; in some studies, this has resulted in yield gains of up to 100%, water savings of up to 40–80%, and associated fertilizer, pesticide, and labor savings over conventional irrigation systems
The solar-powered systems, however, look to offer the potential for even better results. From the study examination of impacts of their PVDI systems:
The women’s agricultural group members utilizing the PVDI systems became strong net producers in vegetables with extra income earned from sales, significantly increasing their purchases of staples, pulses, and protein during the dry season, and oil during the rainy season. Finally, survey respondents were asked how frequently they were unable to meet their household food needs. Based on the frequency and most recent incident, households were assigned a food insecurity score ranging from zero (no problems during the previous year) to one (perpetually unable to meet food needs). This score changed significantly for project beneficiaries, as they were 17% less likely to feel chronically food-insecure. In short, the PVDI systems had a remarkable effect on both year-round and seasonal food access.
Note that much of the benefits above were because of “DI” and not solely (or mainly, perhaps) attributable to “PV”. But, the “PV” brings benefits to the table such as eliminating vulnerability to fossil fuel price volatility and potential supply disruption.
One of the basic design characteristics is a “battery-free configuration, thereby avoiding one of the major pitfalls of photovoltaic (PV) use in the developing world.”
In a Photovoltaic- (or solar-) powered drip irrigation (PVDI) system, a PV array powers a pump (either surface or submersible, depending on the water source) that feeds water to a reservoir. The reservoir then gravity-distributes the water to a low-pressure drip irrigation system.
This arrangement leads to a benefit that provided one of those ‘head-slapping of course’ moments.
No batteries are used in the system: The pump only runs during the daytime, and energy storage is in the height of the column of water in the reservoir. Sizing of pumps, reservoirs, and fields is done on the basis of water availability and local evapotranspiration needs. The system passively self-regulates: Because solar radiation is the main driver of both pump speed and evapotranspiration, the volume of water pumped increases on clear hot days when plants need more water, and vice versa.
With a PVDI system, no sprinklers operating on a cloudy, rainy day.
Now, clearly solar systems have a higher upfront costs — but so does any sophisticated irrigation system (what, after all, are irrigation ditches but ‘upfront costs’?). Even so, rather astonishingly, the scientists conclude a 2.3 year payback on the installation of a PVDI system. Their research led them to the conclusion
that solar-powered drip irrigation significantly augments both household income and nutritional intake, particularly during the dry season, and is cost effective compared to alternative technologies.
Leap frogging past fossil-fueled systems into PVDIs look, based on this research, to make sense for portions of the world’s poorest citizens. And, this tool for increasing wealth and improving food security has another benefit:
When considering the energy requirements for expanded irrigation in rural Africa, PVDI systems have an additional advantage over liquid-fuel-based systems in that they provide emissions-free pumping power. Assuming that a similar size pump set (0.75–1.5 kW) would replace the solar-powered pump and would require 0.15 L of fuel per cubic meter of water pumped, we calculate that each garden avoids a minimum of 0.86 t of carbon emissions per yr (12.9 t over a 15 yr lifetime) in comparison with the liquid-fuel alternative.
Each PVDI system would, over 15 years, cut carbon emissions roughly equivalent to 60% of an average American.
When considering the energy requirements for expanded irrigation in rural Africa, PVDI systems have an additional advantage over liquid-fuel-based systems in that they provide emissions-free pumping power. Assuming that a similar size pump set (0.75–1.5 kW) would replace the solar-powered pump and would require 0.15 L of fuel per cubic meter of water pumped, we calculate that each garden avoids a minimum of 0.86 t of carbon emissions per yr (12.9 t over a 15 yr lifetime) in comparison with the liquid-fuel alternative.
NOTE: I am surprisingly happy to say that an organization that I have donated to in the past, the Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF) had a role in the PVDI system conception, financing, and installation. Reading this paper and their role it inspires me to donate again
Scientists at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center have published a study, Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth, suggesting that climate change can quite literally be measured by treehuggers. Like the average American citizen, American trees look to have had increasingly bulging middles in recent decades. Having spent their careers quite literally hugging trees, SERC scientists Geoffrey Parker and Sean McMahon have written a study documenting
evidence that forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years. The study offers a rare look at how an ecosystem is responding to climate change.
For over 20 years, Parker has gone into a set of forests in the mid-Atlantic, tape measure in hand, and giving them a hug to measure their size. Parker’s own hugging has been extended with a robust group of volunteers conducting regular measurements of specified trees. (The boy scout to the right, while in a SERC forest, isn’t engaged in actual measurements for the study.) Some 250,000 hugs later, he has quite a database in hand. The results of analyzing hugs surprised these researchers. Based on the data from these 100,000s of hugs, Parker’s and McMahon’s analysis documents
that the forest is packing on weight at a much faster rate than expected. … on average, the forest is growing an additional 2 tons per acre annually. That is the equivalent of a tree with a diameter of 2 feet sprouting up over a year.
Now, there are many things that contribute to plant growth, from soil quality to rainfall to temperatures to CO2 concentrations. Parker and McMahon have concluded that the driver for the bulging middles of the studied groves is best explained through human impacts: the rising levels of CO2 (a nutrition); and the warmer temperatures and extended growing season due to global warming (driven, in no small part, due to the rising CO2 levels).
During the past 22 years CO2 levels at SERC have risen 12%, the mean temperature has increased by nearly three-tenths of a degree and the growing season has lengthened by 7.8 days. The trees now have more CO2 and an extra week to put on weight. Parker and McMahon suggest that a combination of these three factors has caused the forest’s accelerated biomass gain.
This was not some predetermined answer.
It was not enough to document the faster growth rate; Parker and McMahon wanted to know why it might be happening. “We made a list of reasons these forests could be growing faster and then ruled half of them out,” said Parker. The ones that remained included increased temperature, a longer growing season and increased levels of atmospheric CO2.
While the additional growth has some quite positive aspects, such as sequestering more carbon in the trees than would occur with ‘normal growth’, there are some aspects to consider:
Already, there are areas in the world where tree growth seems to be slowing — whether to climate disruption (such as disrupted water patterns), insects and disease enabled through warming (such as what is happening with North America’s spruce forests), and/or warming (some tropical areas are seeing growth slowing, perhaps due to temperatures simply being too warm.
Warmth, Co2, and growing seasons aren’t the only factors enabling growth. Could the tree growth be limited due to other factors (rain, nutrients)? And, there are simply limits to growth which the trees will reach (sooner).
“The danger of that, of course, is that this can’t go on forever,” He meant that, even if there was enough carbon dioxide to support more fast growth, the trees would eventually run out of water or plant food. Their growth would slow down, and they would stop absorbing so much carbon.
Parker and McMahon don’t expect SERC’s forest to continue growing at this accelerated rate forever. Some day the growth rate will level off. When that happens, they wonder how that will affect CO2 levels. If trees are sponges that absorb CO2, what will happen to CO2 levels in the atmosphere when the trees become saturated? It’s a question for further exploration.
Those seeking to undermine knowledge and respect for science, whether it is those who decry Charles Darwin’s laying out of evolution or fossil-foolish interests attacking Nobel Prize winners, have something to fear when Barack Obama chooses to speak (with or without a teleprompter). While there were many reasons for his election, his ability to speak clearly, in a way that communicates (and communicates his intelligence/knowledge) certainly ranks up there.
President Obama turned that clarity of communication to the basic question of whether DC (or Dallas) snowstorms undermine the science of Global Warming.
First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody’s like-a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, “See, look at that. There’s all this snow on the ground, you know, this doesn’t mean anything.”
I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn’t mean that every place is getting warmer. It means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver which supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow.
The idea is that as the planet as a whole gets warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather.
So any single place might end up being warmer. Another place might end up being a little bit cooler. There might end up being more precipitation in the air.
More monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more drought in some places, floods in other places.
Rep. Steve King [promotes the] absurd conclusion that snow disproves climate change. Addressing a crowd at the annual CPAC conference, King said “It’s tough to make an argument when the evidence is all around us with a snowy white wonder in a crystal cathedral.” This sort of inane logic is what scores political points among conservative activists. Challenging science seems to be the conservative movement’s equivalent to speaking truth to power. But the conclusion is tragically flawed.
Veronica Martin always demonstrated this never ending positivity. I think this is what I liked best about him. He was always upbeat- and oftentimes it seemed that nothing could bring him down.
David Martin reminded me of Guthrie, Springsteen, and Dylan. A man who could tell you his story in such a way that you could not deny how it applied to you. It didn’t matter if he was telling you about a cause he felt strongly about or what he had for breakfast, if he saw your face every day or you just read his words on a… page, if you even agreed with him or not – There was no denying that his story WAS your story. I feel honored to have been able to have been part of his story, as well as have had him as part of mine.
And, so on …
What struck me about Martin, repeatedly, was his ability to take such a wide range of issues and communicate them with a clarity and structure that laid the issues out bluntly for any with a mind open enough to listen. While he did so on a plethora of issues, at times his clarity of thought and writing related to energy and climate issues simply stood out. There is a reason that I reached out to cross-post one of his pieces here at GESN. In Change in the Weather, Martin tackled ClimateGate with the perspective of a non-expert judging what logic and sensible thinking leads to. And, he concluded:
Even if global warming isn’t our fault, it is our responsibility. The United States alone produces 220 to 230 million tons of garbage a year — 4.6 pounds per person. Most of this is not recycled, but simply dumped or buried in landfills, where it contaminates groundwater and produces health hazards for anyone living nearby. This is unquestionably our responsibility. We made this mess, and we must clean it up. And when it comes to global warming, the question must be asked, “Who is going to handle it?” Who else can address the issue of sea levels rising as the polar ice caps melt? Who else can come up with solutions to entire cultures being destroyed due to rapid climate change? The answer is the same. It’s up to us. We try to deny the existence of human-caused global warming so as to deny our part in destroying the planet — a concept so vast it renders people utterly helpless. But now’s not the time to be helpless, or to be swayed by naysayers who refuse to accept the truth right in front of their eyes. It’s a time to be bold, brave, and visionary, and step forward to accept our responsibility to clean up the planet and not let Nature suffer for our mistakes. If that’s not being personally responsible, what is?
I agree completely (which is something I normally make a point not to do with anyone, just on principle), and I also want to thank you not only for writing the piece that I was planning for tomorrow morning, but doing such an excellent job.
there’s this sudden faux-grassroots movement on the right to open up all of our wildlife reserves and our shores for oil drilling, under the pretense that it’ll reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lower prices at the pump. It’s even got a catchy, easily memorable slogan: “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.” And it’s all the rage in East Wingnuttia.
Too bad that it’s completely wrong and as far from the truth as one can get while still being in the same space/time continuum.
The “Drill now” slogan is a perfect example of how the conservative movement works. You get a plan that’s easily boiled down into a series of repeatable talking points. You spread it everywhere, using your access to major media outlets to your advantage, and relying on a corps of loyal supporters to coalesce larger political movements around it. Next thing you know, despite the efforts of some of the best and most well-informed environmentalists and energy activists out there to remind us that offshore and ANWR drilling is a fool’s errand at best, public opinion is beginning to shift in favor of “drill, drill, drill.”
While that is, perhaps, an incredibly pessimistic statement about what was going on in mid-2008, Martin didn’t end with pessimism, but had a strong streak of optimism that permeated so much of what he did. Thus, the post moved on:
Americans are smarter than we are often given credit for, and many of us do realize that destroying precious environmental resources and wildlife reserves to allow more domestic drilling is a psychological panacea–a placebo to make us feel like “something is being done.” The trick is to get the word out and keep it going across the country, so that everyone understands clearly…we need longer-term solutions and a fundamental reorientation of how our country works on every level if we’re going to preserve our economy and improve–not preserve, but improve–our way of life. Drilling is fine for a cavity, but what we need to fix our woeful state is a lot bigger than what a drillbit can offer.
Martin strove to “get the word out”, to inform his fellow citizens and arm them with truth so that they would have the ammunition to show that “Americans are smarter” than right-wing propagandists hope. Amid a time of worsening media distortions and misperceptions about our challenges/opportunities/paths forwards, the quality and strength of Martin Bosworth’s intellect, character, and wisdom will be missed.
Glen Besa, director of the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, accused Cuccinelli of wasting taxpayer money on his own ideological crusade against global warming.
“This litigation is ideologically based at taxpayer expense and it’s not based on the science or the law,” he said. “The science is pretty settled with regard to the fact that climate change is occuring and humans have caused climate change…For us to take this to court is like retrying evolution.”
Virginians knew it wouldn’t take long for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to focus his attention and office on furthering his political agenda and ambitions. The surprise, perhaps, is that it took him a whole month to put Virginia embarrassingly ahead of Texas as an opponent of science and the source of states-rights nonsense.
This is, well, a quite damning statement, one that states bluntly that Cuccinelli puts his “political agenda and ambitions” well before the interests of his constituents and above any allegiance to knowledge.
You’d think the attorney general of a state with one of the places most vulnerable to rising sea levels – that would be Hampton Roads – would be sensitive to the concerns of constituents. Instead, he’s decided to pick an expensive losing fight with a federal agency that has science and the Constitution on its side.
It is unclear what impact additional flooding in Hampton Roads and rising seas might have on job creation and economic development. But it probably won’t be good.
Hmmm … Note that essentially every single “study” that purports to show (falsely) that action to mitigate climate change would cost jobs essentially makes the assumption that climate disruption comes at minimal to no cost. That is not just a dubiously ignorant assumption, but an arrogantly risky one to make by anyone in a policy-making position. Planning for the control of well-understood risk is a hallmark of good governance — in both the private and public sector. Determining to charge forward, wearing blinders to potential risk, is the hallmark of someone setting a path toward disaster.
Cuccinelli, a noted climatologist, also says his move is based on new information, specifically the minor tempests surrounding stolen e-mails from climate scientists in Great Britain and small problems with a massive report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Neither problem even begins to undermine the science that has concluded that the planet is warming and that man is probably causing it. But the global-warming denial industry – sponsored by energy companies and their political supporters – has succeeded in pretending that it has.
Now, the Virginia-Pilot continues the damning commentary.
Here’s the interesting thing, though: Cuccinelli was convinced that global warming was bunk long before either the stolen e-mails were released or the minor problems were found in the IPCC report. The attorney general was convinced before any of the discovery of the evidence he cited at Wednesday’s press conference.
In his press conference, Cuccinelli provided a quite distorted (and simply untruthful) set of statements about recent developments in climate science, asserting that these create an imperative for the EPA to revisit the science based finding that Co2 emissions endanger the public. Part of his distortion, his untruthy truthiness, is attempting to twist this into some recent conclusion on his part when Cuccinelli has long proudly displayed his anti-science syndrome credentials.
That’s probably not how Virginians want the state’s top lawman to reason: Reach a verdict first, then consider only the evidence that supports it.
Yes, lawman Ken Cuccinelli: Shoot and ask questions later.
As a mainstream climate scientist, I am confident about the following facts:
—Earth has warmed by 0.7-0.8C since the late 1800’s.
—Greenhouse gas concentrations began rising near 1850 and have been rising since then.
—Most of the warming since the middle/late 1800’s, and the vast majority of it since 1970, has been caused by greenhouse-gas increases.
—Given this history, and with the current rate of gas emissions, future climate will likely be warmer (probably much warmer than any climate of the last few tens of millions of years).
Actions that produce climates greatly different from today carry great risk. And at this point we are headed in that direction.
Atmospheric scientist Jennie Moody, research associate professor, University of Virginia, has concluded that “the public welfare is threatened by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,” based on her own research and knowledge of the science:
There is nothing in my own research, or my understanding of the science of climate change that would give me reason to believe that EPA’s finding of endangerment is not based on sound science. To rephrase this, I would say that my knowledge gained through regular scholarship (reading of the literature in my field, I have a Ph.D. in atmospheric science (meteorology) and a minor in chemistry) and to a lesser extent from my own research in facts leads me to conclude that the public welfare is threatened by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Wildlife biologist Michael Erwin, research professor, University of Virginia, who feels “there is no question” about the link between greenhouse gases and sea level rise, warns of the consequences to the state of Virginia:
The issue of relative sea level rise is a real concern, especially in the mid Atlantic region (from New Jersey to North Carolina, and including Chesapeake Bay) and the Louisiana-Mississippi coast. The combination of eustatic sea level rise and subsidence in both areas is substantial, resulting in inundation of many wetlands, and erosion of many small marsh islands; it appears that most models predict an even more rapid rate of sea level rise in the next century. This has major implications to the wildlife species that depend on marshes, as well as human infrastructure in these densely populated areas.
This guest post from Patriot News Daily Clearinghouse turns a critical eye toward Senator Feinstein’s efforts to rewrite long-standing California water policy. It then turns to some great links re climate and environmental issues.
The only benefit to Sen. Feinstein’s new measure to unilaterally rewrite California water policy might be to galvanize enough Democrats to finally dump her. True to her secrecy fetish, she has not yet released details of her proposal to allocate more Delta water to farmers by essentially creating an exemption in the Endangered Species Act. California does not need Di stoking water wars. Her measure infuriates environmental activists, fishing groups, fellow Democrats and gives Senator Boxer an unnecessary political headache as she faces re-election with right-winger Carly Fiorina.
Feinstein plans to attach her amendment to a federal jobs bill. Leaked details indicate it is an anti-science policy parroting Sean Hannity’s campaign. The timing of the measure violates her agreement with Democrats to wait for the science report. The drafting of this measure is an end run around courts upholding the biological opinions and the stakeholder process working to find real solutions. Her approach is a short-sighted faux fix to water shortage by rewriting environmental laws rather than fixing the underlying water crisis.
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming.
Jones: Yes, but only just.
I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level.
Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
So, yes, Professor Phil Jones agreed that “there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995” … but only just.
The Daily Mail article, of course, didn’t mention that detail nor that ‘statistical significance’ is harder to establish over shorter time periods (like 1995 through 2009).
Even more interesting, of course, is to take a look at the question and its phrasing. Why 1995 and not 1994 or 1996? Why not 1997 or, to take it as exactly a decade, 2000?
And, of course, while ” not significant at the 95% significance level,” the “trend” is a 0.12 centigrade (or roughly .215 degrees Fahrenheit) increase upwards per decade during this 15 year period. Thus, the Hadley-CRU temperature record is showing warming — even if the warming over this period is not yet statistically significant to the 95 percent confidence level, yet …
New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming. because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe
2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880. Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began. January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s. The near-record temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America.
Sigh, the denialosphere noise machine will make much of this and we will all too likely see these move from the sound machine, to Faux News and Politico, to ‘more reputable’ traditional media outlets, providing yet another sound bite of misinformation to confuse the public and distort the public debate about climate disruption and the need for serious action to mitigate climate change.
Michael Tobis, Only in it for the gold, JournalismAs is common, the most egregious behavior is by the anonymous headline writer. The journalist, Jonathan Petre, can claim innocence, except for the peculiar use of the word “blip” showing a mind boggling lack of understanding of statistics for someone reporting on science, but at least an attempt at fairness. Defenders of the press, explain this one. And explain where the world gets redress from this.
The Daily Mail is known as the “Daily Fail” for a reason, and this is the reason. They lie about and distort stories on climate change frequently. This is just the latest example.
In the Outlook section, the Post‘s special Sunday opinion section, The Washington Post yet again published the worth-reading Bill McKibben with Washington’s snowstorms, brought to you by global warming. McKibben’s discussion highlights how Global Warming will lead to climate disruption’ pointing out that while DC has snow, helicopters were moving snow for Olympic events and Vermont cross-country races were being canceled due to lack of snow; and discussing just why, contrary to some people’s belief patterns, Global Warming will cause greater amounts of precipitation (and more severe precipitation events) and, thus, greater amounts of snowfall for some areas in some winters. McKibben’s piece ends:
Looked at dispassionately, the round of snowmageddons crisscrossing the mid-Atlantic carries the same message. But it’s hard to be dispassionate when you’re wondering, six hours of shoveling later, if there’s a good chiropractor in the neighborhood and what kind of dogsled you might need to reach her.
It’s almost like a test, centered on ground zero for climate-change legislation. Can you sit in a snowstorm and imagine a warming world? If you’re a senator, can you come back to work and pass a bill that blunts the pace of climate change? If the answer is no, then we’re really in a world of trouble.
That feeds into the other half of the schizophrenia, in the front section’s editorial pages with the linking of scientific reality to political reality in Dana Milbank’s Global warming’s snowball fight and the collection of thoughts at Topic A: Did D.C.’s blizzard bury climate change legislation? These, sadly, repeat too many convenient ‘political realities’ at odd with physical reality and, to a large extent, contribute to misunderstanding through ‘faux balance’.
Let’s start with Milbank, who starts:
The back-to-back snowstorms in the capital were an inconvenient meteorological phenomenon for Al Gore
He then quotes some of the anti-science syndrome suffering Republican twitter messages and Glenn Beck comments before moving to science:
As a scientific proposition, claiming that heavy snow in the mid-Atlantic debunks global warming theory is about as valid as claiming that the existence of John Edwards debunks the theory of evolution. In fact, warming theory suggests that you’d see trends toward heavier snows, because warmer air carries more moisture. This latest snowfall, though, is more likely the result of a strong El Niño cycle that has parked the jet stream right over the mid-Atlantic states.
“We really shattered the all-time record. It’s El Niño, and there’s something else that nobody understands at this point. It’s El Niño Plus.” [Note that is a quote from a front-page Washington Post story from last Thursday.]
“El Niño Plus”. Thus, in the very paragraph where Milbank attempts to acknowledge and explain the science, he provides a serious misrepresentation of it.
A more relevant comment would have been: “Mediocre journalism, which seems intent to present “both sides” as seemingly of equal legitimacy, has undermined public understanding of scientific conclusions about issues with significant public policy import, such as related to Global Warming and the risks of catastrophic climate chaos.” [NOTE: Joe Romm deals with another way in which Milbank misrepresents in the column as does top meteorologist Jeff Masters.Also, let’s not forget Milbank’s wonderful Goracle piece.]
To that “public policy”, let’s turn to topic A with commentaries from former New Jersey Governor and first EPA Administrator in the Bush-Cheney Administration, Ken Green & Steven Hayward from the right-wing American Enterprise Institution, David Hawkins from the National Resources Defense Council, former Reagan and George HW Bush White House staffer Ed Rogers, Emily Figador from Environment America (only online), and “Democratic” pollster and author Douglas Schoen.
Not suprisingly, Green, Hayward, and Rogers lay out misleading comments, claiming (falsely) that climate legislation would hurt the US economy and action isn’t supported by the science. From Rogers:
Now they have suffered a coup de grace: public ridicule brought on by a record-breaking blizzard blasting their East Coast home base. The movement was already dead in Congress for 2010 (its climate-change bill has been sidelined), but Snowmageddon buried it. How could it be that heat waves evidenced global warming, but so did a cold wave? The public isn’t buying it anymore.
Well, Ed, the existence of human influence on the climate doesn’t make the Earth stop rotating and stop “winter” in the Northern Hemisphere. On the other hand, a warmer planet has more moisture in the atmosphere and more severe (over one inch, 24 hours, of precipitation) events. While Vancouver had the hottest January in modern historical records, Washington, DC, is having just about an average winter in terms of temperature — even as more moisture hits winter temperatures.
Whitman lays out what might be called a Republicans for Environmental Protection commentary even as it understates the issue. As to the direct response to the question, Whitman might be right: “It shouldn’t, but it will.”
Both Hawkins and Figador lay out reality-based comments, as Figdor comments:
Yet the legislative environment is uncertain. Within weeks, the Senate is slated to vote on a measure that would block President Obama from enforcing the Clean Air Act to fight global warming. The vote is expected to be a nail-biter, thanks to a frenzied lobbying campaign by America’s biggest polluters. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — ironically, the state most directly, rapidly and dramatically affected by global warming — plans to offer a resolution that would strike at the heart of the Clean Air Act, a law with a nearly 40-year track record of cutting dangerous pollution to protect Americans’ health and the environment, and of spurring technological innovation. This vote is a true test of whether lawmakers will act to protect the public and allow America to compete economically in the coming decades or if Big Oil and Coal call the shots in the Senate. If the resolution passes, it will indeed bury real legislation on the issue this year.
Perhaps the most disturbing, however, of all comes from Schoen. Read solely from a “political reality” perspective, he might have some basis but Schoen’s words show a buying into misleading and deceptive truthiness confusing the discussion of climate science.
The recent bout of wintry weather and the overall political climate have almost certainly killed climate-change legislation this year.
Schoen might be right … sadly.
The science that supports the causes and effects of global warming has become increasingly open to doubt and question.
In terms of the scientific basis, in terms of scientific research, this is simply a false statement. In terms of press discussion, based on an organized global campaign to undermine science and attack scientists, this is truthful. Yes, there are errors within 1000s of pages of reports … but where scientists correct themselves, contrarians refuse to. Thank you Douglas for buying into and repeating truthiness-laden anti-science syndrome framing of the discussion.
The weather this winter, particularly in the past week or so, makes it more difficult to argue that global warming is an imminent danger and suggests that global warming may well not be as inexorable a force as some believe.
In political terms, it might be “more difficult” but, as per McKibben’s piece in the same Washington Post, the truth is that this is an utter falsehood when it comes to science. And, Douglas, the issue is in no small part due to reporting. Vermont without snow and Vancouver with record warm temperatures and Arctic warmth aren’t getting the same press coverage as a Washington DC inundated with snow.
Further, the political downside to supporting the legislation is unambiguous. Americans are primarily concerned with jobs and the economy. Any significant effort spent on other legislation will reignite charges, originally hurled during the lengthy and unsuccessful health-care debate, that the White House and Democrats in Congress are out of touch with voters’ needs.
Evidently, Schoen doesn’t realize that climate change does not just create a serious threat but creates serious opportunities. Schoen is a pollster who, evidently, doesn’t correlate the massive American support for clean energy jobs and technologies like solar and wind power with a winning political (and economic and climate) path forward toward climate mitigation.
Again, Schoen is described as a “Democratic Pollster” (although Sean Hannity wonders whether that is accurate). With such blatantly ignorant comments as published here, we have to wonder what sort of bias Schoen puts into polling questions and his (likely error-filled) examination of polling data on clean energy and climate issues. Sadly, one has to wonder how many Democratic politicians are getting bad advice when it comes to climate legislation from him.
with a focus on transportation and electricity. While these represent the majority of US emissions, this might well (note that full proposals are not in hand) ignore the quite real pollution impacts due to land-use patterns and agriculture — and, perhaps, even more importantly the low-cost, high-payoff opportunities to improve agricultural production while reducing (significantly) pollution loads. And, well, there is a reason that “strong” is in quotation marks because this is likely to be a weak proposal in terms of proposed emissions reductions and, even more so, in terms of support for traditional fossil-fuel electricity production (especially polluting coal). From there, the options go downhill faster than Bode Miller. [Photo courtesy of Jon Wick.]
and giving them a hug to measure their size. Parker’s own hugging has been extended with a robust group of volunteers conducting regular measurements of specified trees. (The boy scout to the right, while in a SERC forest, isn’t engaged in actual measurements for the study.) Some 250,000 hugs later, he has quite a database in hand. The