This guest post by Martin from Boztopia takes a step back and discusses ClimateGate from ther perspective of an intelligent, non-scientist, observer.
I was not planning to write anything about “Climategate” (or the “Swifthack,” as Josh Nelson calls it) initially. I’m no scientist, and definitely not a climatologist, geologist, or anything even remotely qualified to discuss the science involved. I’m just a moderately intelligent guy who is privileged to run in circles with some real pros in these fields, and was content to let them do the talking rather than say something stupid — unlike roughly 99.999999 percent of the Internet.
If you want a thorough understanding of the saga and a debunking of the idea that this is some kind of massive conspiracy by SCIENCE!!!1 to defraud the world and keep Al Gore rich, I recommend you read Josh’s clearinghouse of articles and links discussing the entire issue from stem to stern. I also recommend reading David Roberts’ and Brian Angliss’ takes on it for further research and edification.
But even as a layman generalist, there are a few basic points I’d like to make. Read on if you’re interested. [Read more →]
The head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Professor Phil Jones, has stepped aside from his directorship for a temporary period to enable a faster and more comprehensive investigation of the Center’s electronic security and of how he (and others) managed the CRU (and their email correspondence) in the face of determined climate change denier assaults on their integrity, their work processes, and otherwise. On top of the often distorted rendering and discussion of specific emails, often taken significantly out of context, this temporary stepping aside is being greeted with glee from the denialosphere (and its Congressional allies, such as James Inhofe). And, across the web, those seeking to reinforce our polluting energy habits and infect greater numbers with anti-science syndrome are out in force using these events to try to shout down science discussion and brow-beat people, especially journalists, into adopting their language when it comes to “ClimateGate” (SwiftHack.).
The e-mail exchanges among several prominent American and British climate-change scientists appear to reveal efforts to keep the work of skeptical scientists out of major journals and the possible hoarding and manipulation of data to overstate the case for human-caused climate change.
Yes, they “appear to overstate” if one takes the denialosphere at their face in terms of discussion of the stolen emails.
However, more direct looks at each email in question, placing the material into context (defining terms) and otherwise suggests otherwise. Media Matters did just such a look with “Climategate” exposed which opens:
Since the reported theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, conservative media figures have aggressively claimed that those emails undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are causing climate change, dubbing the supposed scandal “Climategate.” But these critics have largely rested their claims on outlandish distortions and misrepresentations of the contents of the stolen emails, greatly undermining their dubious smears.
Here is one of the items from that examination:
CLAIM: Trenberth’s “travesty” email exposes private doubts about whether global warming is occurring
BECK: But first, let’s start with the science that has been so settled for all these years. What are these guys saying behind closed doors about their so-called bullet-proof consensus? Well, Kevin Trenberth, he’s a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He wrote, quote: “The fact is, we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” Incorrect data? Inadequate systems? Yeah. Travesty, pretty good word for it. [Glenn Beck, 11/23/09]
In a November 24 Human Events post, James Delingpole asserted that the Trenberth email reveals a scientist “[c]oncealing private doubts about whether the world is really heating up.”
Citing the Trenberth email, Robert Tracinski wrote in a November 24 commentary at RealClearPolitics.com that “[t]hese e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, ‘where the heck is global warming?… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.'”
REALITY: Trenberth’s email referred to “inadequate” system of observing short-term variability, not long-term trend. In the October 12 email, Trenberth cited “my own article on where the heck is global warming” and wrote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate” [emphasis added].
Trenberth published similar comments in the journal article he cited. Wired’s Threat Level blog reported that Trenberth “says bloggers are missing the point he’s making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article — An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) — actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.” RealClimate.org similarly stated in a November 23 post that “[y]ou need to read his recent paper on quantifying the current changes in the Earth’s energy budget to realise why he is concerned about our inability currently to track small year-to-year variations in the radiative fluxes.” Indeed, the Trenberth article referred to what he called an “incomplete explanation” of short-term climate variations, and maintained that “global warming is unequivocally happening.”
Okay, in the email, Trenberth cites an article as a reference to the point that he makes in the email. Let’s talk about that email, however, without considering the referenced discussion — which in in the public record (and available on the web).
Back to Broder … When reading Broder’s article, which notably quotes serial reality denier James Inhofe and no other American government officials (Congressional or Administration, perhaps discussing ClimateGate with Jim Hansen), it seems clear that he did not put the email context under the sort of scrutiny that occurred from Media Matters. Sadly, however, Media Matters is several mouse clicks away from Broder’s screen — perhaps too long a journey for a busy and tired journalist. Thus, rather than putting Jones’ resignation into some form of appropriate context, Broder’s article implicitly reinforces deceptive framing and discussion being aggressively pushed by deniers and self-proclaimed skeptics anxious to have others become similarly afflicated with anti-science syndrome.
Clean Energy Jobs Go Swimming: $300 million per year for 10,000 jobs
Legislation is, they say, analogous to making sausage. Sometimes, in the mixing and mashing, seemingly well-intentioned and sensible options can create counter-productive situations and leave many valued goods on the table. One small example of this could open the door to creating employment, lowering costs for state & local governments (including educational institutions0, improving ‘customer’ satisfaction, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
When it came to the stimulus package earlier this year, as part of a politically popular move limiting programs eligible for funding, “swimming pools” were explicitly excluded from ARRA funding mechanisms. While, amid serious economic stress and government investment to keep the economic from continuing in freefall, it might have seemed morally appropriate to do this, this restriction simply flies in the face of reality and good sense.
Around the country, whether in schools (K-12 and universities/colleges) or public parks/rec facilities, state and local governments own and operate swimming pools. Many of these, especially as one moves away from the sun belt, are indoor pools heated for good portions of the year. For example, Fairfax, Virginia, has nine recreation centers with indoor swimming pools. Dependent on many factors, the annual heating bill for one of these (large) pools can run $10,000s to even $100,000s.
Such utility bills typically continue, often under the radar, even amid reduced local tax revenues as a ‘fixed expense’ with seemingly no good choice: continue to operate the pool (perhaps saving some $s by lowering the temperature a few degrees and angering swimmers; perhaps raise entry fees significantly and cut into usage) or close it down for months at a time. Few localities choose the shutdown option, unless near bankruptcy, thereby almost guaranteeing above-inflation rate increases in the utility bills even as local revenues fall. Another option, however, exists — one that was precluded by the ARRA restrictions and that should be opened with a jobs package: solar hot water.
Solar hot water for pools represents one of the fastest payback options for renewable energy systems. Without even accounting for any outside assistance, according to the Department of Energy:
A solar pool heating system usually … provides a payback of between 1.5 and 7 years, depending on your local fuel costs. They also typically last longer than gas and heat pump pool heaters.
“between 1.5 and 7 years” to payback? That is, roughly, stating that there is an ROI of between 10 and 60+ percent per year of energy savings versus the cost of installation. This, as well, doesn’t account for reduced maintenance costs and lower future system replacement costs.
This Energy Smart choice, however, falls through the cracks in many local government planning systems. Solar isn’t well understood and, often, viewed as some form of ‘enviro-liberal luxury’ item. Utilities come out of a different budget than infrastructure investments. Utility costs are often undifferentiated, thus the $100,000 to heat a pool is simply wrapped up in the $300,000 (example) of utilities to run a rec center. And, amid economic constraints, investment budgets for ‘enviro-liberal luxury’ items are often the first to go to the wayside.
Here, however, is a straightforward way for the Federal government to spark local business activity throughout most of the nation, help local governments reduce operating costs (SAVE MONEY!) while providing better public services (warmer pools at lower cost), foster improved infrastructure for renewable energy projects throughout the nation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create jobs.
At a rough estimate, putting in solar hot water heating in an enclosed public pool might run roughly $100,000 on average. A Federal program could combine direct payments along with additional assistance: a direct payment of 50 percent along with, as necessary, a ten-year loan program for the remaining portion. In essence, this would provide local governments a path toward $10,000s a year in savings on every heated pool’s operating costs, money that could be used to keep teachers and policemen on payroll or pay for other threatened local government expenditures (and/or reducing the burden on taxpayers).
Such a program would be a highly effective leveraging tool as part of Federal assistance to state and local governments. The Federal assistance would pay back, a high rate of return, in terms of local and state governance costs. And, it would foster jobs.
Due to the leveraging amount, assuming that the Federal costs would end up (at the high end) at about 66% of installation costs, every $million invested should support about 30 direct and indirect jobs (which, of course, includes the teachers not fired due to local government savings).
Let’s take that Fairfax County recreation department case: nine large indoor pools. Assuming (almost certainly low) that each pool costs $50,000 to heat each year, this totals some $450,000 in annual heating costs. Pool heating percentage of total costs varies, but a 50 percent figure is a reasonable working number: thus, annual savings would be $225,000 (or roughly 3 teachers with benefits). Let us assume that it would take $1 million to put in solar hot water heating for all of these large pools. The upfront costs for the solar heating would be paid back in just under 4.5 years (at a 22.5% per year savings), assuming that energy costs don’t rise. If the Federal government paid half the costs, the County would see its investment paid back in just over two years. A two-year, 40% per year, payback seems quite sensible for funding via a bond program that might cost the County’s citizens about 5 percent per year in interest. And, by the way, this does not count the various tax and other economic benefits that would accrue back to the County of Fairfax, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Federal government due to business activity, employment taxes, and other financial implications of such a program.
A $200 million per year program, assuming the Federal government’s costs total 66% on average, would mean some $300 million per year invested in solar heating for public swimming pools (local & state rec centers and parks; K-12 schools; public universities). In just a few years, the majority of the nation’s public heated pools could be converted to solar heating. A $400 million program ($600 or so total investment) would support the conversion of roughly 6000 public swimming pools around the nation. This program could, as well, easily be extended to Federal pools (such on military bases), assistance to non-profit pools (notably private educational institutions), and assistance to backfitting solar heating to commercial pools (such as water parks).
Clean Energy Jobs Go Swimming: $300 million per year for 10,000 jobs
December 2nd, 2009 · Comments Off on Clean Energy Jobs come in small and BIG numbers … 10+ million of them
This guest post comes from NBBooks), who was a founding (board). This is posted as part of a serious looking at clean energy jobs‘ opportunities for sparking meaningful employment, quickly, in the United States as discussed in Clean Energy Jobs: Stimulate Me
Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not.
-Robert F. Kennedy
According to figures compiled by the America Society of Civil Engineers, a multi-year program of just repairing all existing U.S. infrastructure requires an additional $1.134 trillion dollars than already planned funding.
At 27,000 jobs created for every $1 billion, such a program spread over five years would directly create 6.124 million jobs.
I have further identified a greatly expanded infrastructure program, to bring the United States economy into the 21st century. Building the infrastructure required to end our dependence on burning fossil fuels and shift the United States entirely to renewable energy, and also ensuring all drinking water and waste water management needs for future Americans, requires another $4.686 trillion.
As a ten year program, this would directly create another 12.7 million jobs.
There are only two obstacles between the grim reality of gradual economic decline we now face, and the alluring picture of a United States busily and noisily rebuilding itself back into prosperity: one, the financial system, with its insistence on quick returns and profit rates well above single digits; and two, a cowardly political leadership which is terrified that doing what is needed to re-impose the idea of the national good in economic policies would cause panic in the financial markets.
Faux and Balanced — not exactly the moniker that one would expect a leading national newspaper would embrace so firmly.
Yet today, yet again, the Post played the Faux and Balanced routine on its OPED pages by both publishing an utterly untruthful letter filled with ‘true’ facts and a confused OPED from a regular columnist who got it 90+% right and then went off on a bizaarely confusing tangent.
Faux letter to balance some truth
Today the Post published three letters re ClimateGate (better discussed as SwiftHack), two of which represented ‘balance’ by giving space to climate change deniers red in the face over two Post items placing SwiftHack into context (Eugene Robinson’s 27 Nov Tell it to the Ice Caps and the Post’s 25 Nov 2009 editorial Climate of Denial which poorly bought into much of the confused criticism of the CRU researchers while supporting the need for climate action. Let’s take a look at one of these, the letter from “John J. Tkacik Jr.,Alexandria”
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) notes that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000.
You know, this is a true statement. However, is it truthful?
If we actually go to the NOAA source, the sentences that follow this statement seem relevant: “In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel below). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C, so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.”
So, emphasizing that 2008 could be the coolest year since 2000 is, don’t you think, more than a bit misleading for the casual reader who might not be aware that we are amid the warmest decade in recorded history that 2008 is solely the “7th to 10th warmest year” on record.
So perhaps Eugene Robinson should have read the opening sentence of the Arctic Research Consortium’s “Pan Arctic Sea Ice Outlook” on the NOAA Web site before writing his Nov. 27 op-ed, “Tell it to the ice caps.” According to the consortium’s summary, “the arctic summer sea ice extent minimum in September 2009 (5.36 million square kilometers) was greater than that observed in 2007 or 2008.”
Perhaps this is another misleading statement even though it has “fact” being referenced (with links)?
One tipper, specific dates and also isolating to just a few years ago rather than placing this within context.
If we look to NOAA annual Arctic Report Card, issued earlier this month, we find: “One of the most dramatic signals of the general Arctic-wide warming trend in recent years is the continued significant reduction in the extent of the summer sea ice cover and the decrease in the amount of relatively older, thicker ice. The extent of the 2009 summer sea ice cover was the third lowest value of the satellite record (beginning in 1979) and >25% below the 1979 – 2000 average.”
While sea ice data certainly indicate a long-term Arctic warming trend, observed fluctuations appear to be quite wide and not closely correlated with minuscule (albeit accumulating) concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
So, “observed fluctuations” are continually downward. What is “long term”? In climate conditions, in geologic terms, we’d normally be talking centuries and, more likely, millenia rather than years and decades. But, to a human with a short attention span, a decade is a really “long-term … trend”.
Ahh, so (“minuscule”) “concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide” are growing (except with annual seasonal variation) at a basically linear rate and the atmosphere / planetary ecosystem is not cooperating by having a temperature change that follows the same, exact line and pattern. Thus, a ha, we have some form of proof that Global Warming isn’t real?
And, of course, there is that “miniscule”. It is, after all, only 385 or so parts per million (remember, MILLION) that we’re talking about. So what if that is about 40 percent higher than at any point in the history of homo sapiens (yes, any point in the past million years or so). It is, after all, MINISCULE and therefore irrelevant … right?
All of this presumably should give pause to any climate scientist, global warming skeptic or believer alike.
Huh. Why should that give pause.
By the way, do note the skill with words, seeking to associate “global warming skeptic” with “climate scientist” which is a rarely seen combination. And to create a false sense of balance between “global warming skeptic and believer”, as if they are equivalent in substance and number. And, finally, making this “global warming believer” rather than someone who is relying on science and the scientific method to inform themselves (and others) with honest and truthful information.
This is why the e-mail revelations from the Climate Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia that Mr. Robinson wrote about are so unsettling — they show scientists seeking to discredit and censor data that did not support their hypotheses.
Mr. Robinson says he welcomes contrarian views on global warming, but to paraphrase his own words: So far he hasn’t gotten through to the expanding Arctic sea ice.
But, Mr Tkacik and Post editors, the “expanding Arctic sea ice” is occurring at this moment because of that unpredictable and unknowable thing called winter.
In terms of editorial control and the importance of providing readership information that could color the validity of a letter, perhaps the Post should have identified “Tkacik” not as some random citizen from Alexandria, Virginia, but to let them know that John J. Tkacik, Jr is a former employee of and senior research fellow at the Heritage Institution, which is one of the preeminent proponents of anti-science syndrome when it comes to Global Warming.
At the Jobs Summit coming up Thursday, a cacophony of ideas will compete for inclusion on the list of what the President ultimately decides to do. That’s good. The unemployment situation needs lots of ideas because there is no silver bullet. No one approach can accomplish everything.
Congress and two administrations have already rescued financial giants and two once-powerful manufacturing operations that has so far kept the whole shebang from toppling into the mud. Unlike its predecessor, the Obama administration has also offered hope to out-of-work and barely working people that full-time jobs will soon flow. For many, that’s happened. But for others the hope is fading as the lost jobs keep accumulating. The urgency could scarcely be more obvious.
One element of whatever else emerges to address unemployment should be a modernized Civilian Conservation Corps. Its main arm should be what should be labeled a Clean Energy Conservation Corps.
Sadly, George Will will not be writing something truthful like the material below. Instead, we should expect that he is feverishly working on a column jumping on the denialosphere bandwagon shouting about “ClimateGate” to add his Will-ful deceit to SwiftHack.
While news reporting focuses on misreading of stolen emails, the reality is that climate chaos moves on. This guest post by rktect points to yet another melting core to the skeptic deluge of disinformation and yet another disturbing example of how the IPCC is overly conservative.
When Eastern Antarctica’s ice finishes melting completely it will flood the Eastern United States as far Inland as the Appalachian trail.
Despite the claims of Global Warming Deniers to the contrary, that the data is being manipulated, many of us
have long accepted the IPCC reports as accurately reflecting the consensus of scientists as to where we are at with Global Warming and Climate Change. One reason Obama may be going to Copenhagen is that the preliminary reports now being peer reviewed for the IPCC’s fifth report due out in 2014 indicate scientists are increasingly using terms like “suprising acceleration” to describe the relation of actual observed data relative to the projected scenarios adopted by the IPCC.
On Nov. 16 this iceberg from East Antarctica reached Macquarie Island, 930 miles southeast of Tasmania, Australia.
November 30th, 2009 · Comments Off on Christmas Lights … scrooge or savior? (an annual refrain …)
Do you love those displays of Christmas (or Hannukah or Kwanza or …) lights? Are you awed by those so impassioned that they string up 1000s of lights in awesome displays worthy of a city center? I once did, pausing on cold winter nights, white clouds issuing from my mouth, enjoying being in the glow of beautiful displays. And, in a way, I was inspired that they would spend $1000s (or $10,000s) on displays and the electricity to power them so that others could enjoy the sight on those cold winter nights.
But … no longer … not for awhile. Far too often nowadays, my winter evenings I can wear short sleeve shirts rather than bulky coats and gloves. And, energy is no longer a question simply of money. I’ve reached the point of feeling like a Scrooge; feeling outrage over the tons of C02 going into the atmosphere via neighbors’ 10,000 light displays rather than feeling ‘joyous’.
But, a compromise does exist; a path to cut sharply those CO2 emissions while still putting out those lights: LED lights. But, far too many are unwilling to spend the money upfront to cut their electricial use, reduce their pollution, and — actually — save quite a lot of money. [Read more →]
To provide perspective, I had the chance to speak with senior members of several DOE review committees while they were going through these grants. [NOTE: To be clear, my questions steered clear of seeking any form of improper knowledge of the process and their comments gave zero information as to any specific grant, their deliberation process, etc …] The core question: ‘Roughly, if you had full funding, roughly what percentage of the applicants would merit funding from the Federal government based on your years of experience?’ The answers varied from 25 to 35 percent. (In another way of looking at, meaning roughly 1000 to 1400 grants from the roughly 4000 applications.) As a follow-up question, ‘if we were to be a little more aggressive, willing to take more risk of failure, would that change your estimate’. One quite emphatically stated that the ‘roughly 25 percent’ figure was good, with no more (and, well, no less) meriting funding while the others raised their estimates by about 10-15 percent. (Another way of looking at this, ‘higher risk’ would see about 1000-2000 of the 4000 applicants funded.) (Related to this, one of the involved reviewers commented that the 4000 applications quite probably represented more work time value in their preparation than the $150 million could fund.)
General consensus of involved experts: easily 25 percent merited funding
Actual funding: less than 1 percent.
All of this suggests a tremendous pent-up demand in terms of viable clean-energy related projects for funding in the nation’s laboratories.
If funded, these projects would not just create and sustain clean energy jobs throughout America today but would also help create a flood of innovation to help the United States seize a leadership position in the clean energy revolution and thus foster even more clean energy jobs tomorrow.
Quite roughly, the ARPA-E grants averaged about $4 million dollars. Assuming that 1000 that merited funding would average the same, that quickly leads us to a $4 billion program. (Which, quite likely, still leaves the ARPA-E program underfunded against real requirements and opportunities.) If funded, this program could leap ahead quickly simply by quickly asking the top 1000 (or top 1500) applicants if they still would like to be be considered for funding. And, then, quickly moving funding to the top 200 (e.g., 5%) unfunded efforts with closer reviews as the review teams move down the list. Of the $4 billion, perhaps $1-2 billion could be moved quickly via that earlier grant application while the doors are opened for new (and continuing) rounds of grant applications.
Clean Energy Jobs Fill Labs: $4 billion per year for 60,000 jobs
November 29th, 2009 · Comments Off on RNC elements seek anti-business pledge
When seeking paths for creating an environment for a prosperous America in the reality of a carbon-constrained future, many see the most business friendly general approach as “Cap & Trade”. Society (politicians) determine a “cap”, a top level, of total emissions and then people (businesses) can buy and trade emissions totaling to that cap. This enables the economy, through a market of carbon pollution permits, to find the most cost effective paths for keeping total pollution loads at or below the total economy’s cap. And, the legislation that the House passed and legislation under consideration in the Senate is even more business friendly, handing out emissions permits to free for serial polluters like oil refineries and coal-fired electricity producers.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:
Included in the “pledge” is the following ‘principle’
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
What is so interesting is that “cap and trade,” itself relies on a “market based” approach to find the most cost effective ways to reduce emissions and, itself, creates a whole new market space of using emissions trading as a path to lower the cost of complying with regulation about carbon pollution. This “market-based” approach to reducing coal-fired electricity emissions that were the primary culprit behind acid rain fostered much lower costs to reduce emissions while achieving higher societal gains than were expected when the original legislation passed.
Note 1: Now, there is something notable about the proposed Republican political pledge: there is no demand for rejection of science via denial of global warming as a fundamental issue. The pledge challenges Cap & Trade, likely inappropriately, as somehow business-unfriendly rather than creating a formal anti-science pledge requiring candidates to deny the science related to the Theory of Global Warming, acidification of the oceans, and other items related to the potential for catastrophic climate change. While called a “conservative” manifesto, this would seem not to meet the growing share of the Republican base who are ever more strongly rejecting science. [Read more →]
provides a payback of between 1.5 and 7 years, depending on your local fuel costs. They also typically last longer than gas and heat pump pool heaters.
rather than bulky coats and gloves. And, energy is no longer a question simply of money. I’ve reached the point of feeling like a Scrooge; feeling outrage over the tons of C02 going into the atmosphere via neighbors’ 10,000 light displays rather than feeling ‘joyous’.