The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news:
"We are taking the fight to them because we are... tired of taking the hits," Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York, told the Chicago Tribune. "The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."
A group of some 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution. While James Hansen from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says scientists are bowing to pressure to be conservative in their pronouncements, leading them to under-play the rate of future sea-level rise, which he now projects will be "on the order of meters on the century timescale."
Meanwhile, regional planners who must help their areas adapt to climate change aren't waiting for the level of public concern to reach a fever pitch.
Peak Oil Happened in 2006, Says the International Energy Agency -- Get Ready for the Climate Disaster That Is Unconventional Fuels
The International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook for 2010 is out, and it says we're never going to produce more conventional crude oil than we did in 2006, when production peaked at 70 million barrels per day.
Simultaneously, a new study suggests we'll run out of oil approximately 90 years before adequate replacements are ready.
Fatih Birol, head of International Energy Agency, projects rather than a Kunstlerian collapse of civilization or an Amory Lovins-esque graduation to a future of efficiency and renewables, what comes next is a steady ramp up of unconventional fuels, including the tar sands of Alberta and "natural gas liquids." Look for today's oil fields to go from around 70 million barrels of oil a day today to around 20 million barrels a day by 2035.
To the extent biofuels are a part of that mix, a new paper says they are even worse than conventional fossil fuels because of the land-use changes they will cause the conversion of "69,000 square km of wild land into fields and plantations, depriving the poor of food and accelerating climate change."
This November, the Biggest Winner of All Was ... Coal!
By now most of us know West Virginia just replaced veteran Senator Robert C. Byrd, who had begun to voice concerns about the intersection of coal and climate change, with Joe Manchin, a candidate who gave us one of the campaign season's most memorable ads, in which he shot the climate bill. It's part of a larger trend in state, federal and even global politics, says author Jeff Goodell, who also argues the more or less unmitigated explosion of the use of coal is driven as much by campaign contributions as its status as the world's cheapest fuel.
Speculation is rampant Manchin is being courted to switch parties by the GOP. Notable among the goodies supposedly being dangled in front of Manchin include support for one of his "pet projects" -- a plant for turning coal into diesel automotive fuel.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) thinks now that the climate bills introduced by legislators have been declared finally, totally, utterly and completely dead, there's plenty of opportunity for bipartisan action on energy, as long as it's limited to nuclear power, electric vehicles and clean coal.
Failure at Copenhagen Upped the Price of Avoiding Klimakatastrophe $1 Trillion
Last year's International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook pegged the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions so as to avoid exceeding 450 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide (the threshold the UN has set as the upper limit for a "safe" climate) at $10.6 trillion. Failure at Copenhagen has boosted that price to $11.6 trillion, which suggests Mother Nature is engaging in some seriously usurious carbon accounting.
Is Europe Going to Tax Our Dirty Carbon-Emitting Goods?
"If countries such as the United States continue to avoid climate cuts, while the EU [European Union] keeps making its industry pay for permits to emit carbon dioxide, trade imbalances will start to occur. Some EU companies are already calling for border tariffs to be slapped on imports to restore the balance."
Battle for the Soul of the Clean Air Act
Everyone wants to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to prevent it from regulating greenhouse gases, even though its powers are already constrained. Food and farm groups have joined forces with the oil industry to sue the EPA over what they say is inadequate research into whether or not the new 15 percent blend of ethanol is safe for people and cars. In a preview of 2011, the war of words between the EPA and Congressional Republicans continues to escalate.
The Climate Post is produced each Thursday by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
The distraction is part of our cultural grieving denial phase.
put down your newspaper, turn off the tv news and do your own research. is america so hooked on fossil fuels that we cant accept new ideas and technologies that will gives us all a better future? is this why america continues to fall farther behind the rest of the world in advancement? is this the attitude our founding leaders took to make america the greatest nation on earth?
there are a lot of peep trying very hard to discredit the truth. if we look at the real science their claims fall apart. please take some time and think it over. this is a problem that wont go away!
The following are scientific facts:
* The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years or more.
* Anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the average temperature of the Earth would be below freezing.
* The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years.
* Satellite measurements demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 has increased retention of heat energy in the atmosphere.
* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanation for said atmospheric CO2 increase.
* There is a strong correlation between said atmospheric CO2 increase and said recent warming.
* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.
Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:
The scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.
P.S. fanned and faved
These are some of the points I am struggling with too. I am trying really hard to parse fact, opinion and fiction in climate science.
I suspect that professionals working in climatology, physical geography, geology etc already have enough challenges without the endless extremes. And when I say "extremes" I mean on both ends from the "No climate change" people to the "OMG we're all going to dieeee" people. It is entirely possible that it's as bad as some would have us believe, but then again, using the same reasoning: it's entirely possible that the state of the world is nowhere near as dire. I suspect that the real answer is somewhere in the middle. My natural inclination, without sounding like a conspiracy theory nutter; is that the state of global warming and its implications in middle-to-bad and has been played down by $$ interests from the energy industries.
In fact they can tell that, and we know beyond any doubt that for most of the Earth's history temperature went up first.
BluePhantom2: "They know what happened but they can't show cause and effect?"
We also know beyond any doubt that CO2 is both a cause and an effect of warmer global temperatures.
BluePhantom2: "My biggest issue with the settled science was the data set (Sample size, duration, variables) being inadequate. The earth is huge and samples of 100 places for 50-75 years does not tell the tale."
There are thousands of temperature stations in the U.S. alone; tens of thousands around the world. We also have temperature proxy data going back hundreds, thousands, and even millions of years.
....
Since then, despite a series of unconvincing attempts to clear the Climategate scientists, it has become clear that the 20-year-old climate scare is dying on its feet. The money draining away from the Chicago exchange speaks louder than all those inquiries – and the same point will be made obvious in a fortnight's time in Cancun, Mexico, as the UN attempts to salvage something from the wreckage at a conference that will draw scarcely a tenth of the numbers that met in Copenhagen."
....Christopher Booker, in the Telegraph.
In addition to being a to being climate science denier, Daily Telegraph OpEd columnist Christopher Booker is also an evolution science denier.
Richard2 denies that Christopher Booker denies evolution science - why do you deny reality, R2?
----------------------------------------
Another recent addition to the BBC's hate list is "intelligent design", the movement gathering way among many respected scientists in the US and elsewhere who have become profoundly sceptical about the adequacy of Darwinian natural selection to explain the complexities of evolution...
On the side of the Darwinians were the BBC's science correspondent, the Today presenter and Sir David Attenborough, all of whom went out of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of "intelligent design" are scientists, some very eminent...
Despite the best efforts of Dr Steven Meyer, an American scientist who was the lone voice arguing for "intelligent design", the BBC trio tried to present it as no more than a cause for religious nutters... Sir David Attenborough clearly had not the slightest idea of what the "intelligent design" thesis is about.
He insisted that "science looks at the facts" and that "We must stick with scientific logic": oblivious to the fact that intelligent design is argued by expert scientists who have come to their conclusions precisely because they are following those principles...
It is fascinating to see how the Darwinians have now put themselves in the same position as the Christian creationists they so despise. They rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions, fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares question their beliefs.
How apt that they should now be supported by that latest home of lost causes, the BBC.
I am not a climate change denier since I do believe global warming is happening. But I have some concerns/skepticism regarding its anthropogenic attribution.
Furthermore, I work in Science professionally and I would like to say to Climate Scientists as a group (of us) ...
DUDES: please ensure that you don't engage in hyperbole and/or media whoring just to bring attention to this issue.
There are MANY areas of science that occasionally get "hot" in the media (both mainstream & interweb) and it is important that we maintain our objectivity and our intellectual rigor when speaking to the wider public. By all means, make it understandable. But *please* do not engage in excessive scare tactics, hyperbole or politicking (at least without clearly stating your conflicts).
Secondly, the East Anglia scandal (whilst sadly originating from an illegal act) has, at the very least; exposed a cabalistic and overly-politicized culture in Climate Science. You guys need to understand, and *apply* the EXACT same ethical standards as scientists in my industry when we act as Govt. Agency advisors, as agent of our employers or interact with Industry. Until the climate scientists come out from their "Basic Science" thinking and realize that their interactions need to be more carefully delineated, we'll continue to have the climate deniers etc. since the very scientists that are championing the cause have so many apparent conflicts of interest!
Cheers
Put up and stop channeling Judith Curry.
My POV comes from the recent massive upheaval in my area about what we are/are not allowed to engage in and how we should/should not present/report conflicts of interest. Most basic sciences have not gone through this process yet (but I guess, in time they all will). I simply thought that, given the prominence of climatology, they might consider early adoption (example:see the AMA's guidelines on conflicts of interest).
Example of hyperbole:
Headline of this article ("Climate Scientists: It's War"). No, they simply said they're mobilizing as a Scientific Society and have decided to act as official representatives to discuss the issue and try to dispel myths. Academics are rarely prepared to comment loudly and publicly, and this is really admirable, but it's not "war". Others have started a push-back against the current politicalization of science through scientific and political channels.
I understand the frustration when there's a lot of misinformation. But, part of persuading the general community to care and take action in climate science is taking naive (or wrong!), but *sincerely meant* questions/comments from people and responding civilly. Its also about educating us with your responses rather than being rude, condescending etc. Some of come to blogs on serious topics for meaningful conversation.
Oh, sorry for any offense, I use "dude" all the time.
Care to back away gracefully from your original admonishment to climate scientists?
Yawn.
The following are scientific facts:
* The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years or more.
* Anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the average temperature of the Earth would be below freezing.
* The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years.
* Satellite measurements demonstrate that increasing atmospheric CO2 has increased retention of heat energy in the atmosphere.
* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanation for said atmospheric CO2 increase.
* There is a strong correlation between said atmospheric CO2 increase and said recent warming.
* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.
Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:
The scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.”
The most likely result of an IQ comparison of two very large population groups is that they have roughly the same bell shaped curve for IQs, with the same averages.
This is the same as asking, we need to get a weight comparison between the believers and deniers! Why should believers weigh more or less than the deniers? Most likely, you would have roughly the same bell shaped curve for weight as for IQ.
In any case, a more polite way to phrase the question would drop the "denier" label, which is not consistent with polite discourse with strangers.
And in other news, a thief takes offense at being labelled a criminal.
Perhaps you can help me with some of the questions I have about warming science (seriously):
1) Correlations are only associations and are not proof. We come across these all the time in medical science and it's really frustrating (e.g. cancer epidemiology)!
Apropos of this, your 6th point above, which is predicated on 1-5, does not convincingly make the the leap to anthropogenic global warming.
Your seventh point seems to help, although I have seen very few good studies supporting the inability of natural forcing agents to cause global warming (many "simulations" are based on iffy data).
Q1: Do you have any idea why no-one has done basic experiments in a controlled "greenhouse" type environment (bio-dome or similar that already has a naturally simulated warm/cool cycling like Earth, but with added CO2 or other greenhouse amplifiers)? I am thinking these could be similar to the well known studies where a "primordial soup" was repeatedly blasted with electrical current "lightning" and amino acids formed.
Q2) I am bemused as to why no-one has come out and condemned "graph gate". For comparison, where I work a grad student (let alone a post-doc or scientist) that dared to present data where the first 1400 point variables were X (e.g. tree rings) but after that X "suddenly became unreliable" so Y was used, would be pilloried (we try to be nice to grad students, but thats not good science).
Thanks in advance
Scientific theories are never "proven". Correlation (or lack thereof) is scientific evidence that supports (or undermines) scientific theories, not proof.
Pharmachick: "We come across these all the time in medical science and it's really frustrating (e.g. cancer epidemiology)!"
Perfect example to illustrate my point above:
The strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer doesn't "prove" that smoking causes lung cancer, but it is strong scientific evidence of that causal connection.
You are presenting yourself here as a medical expert - surely you are therefore familiar with Hill's Criteria of C\ausation? Surely, you also therefore know that correlation (or lack thereof) is scientific evidence that supports (or undermines) a given causal hypothesis.
Pharmachick: "your 6th point above, which is predicated on 1-5, does not convincingly make the the leap to anthropogenic global warming."
Subjective assessment on your part.
Pharmachick: "I have seen very few good studies supporting the inability of natural forcing agents to cause global warming"
You seem confused - of course natural forcing agents cause global warming, as the previous warming throughout the Earth's history demonstrates.
If however what you mean here is that you haven't seen studies demonstrating that said known natural forcing agents cannot account for the bulk of ***recent*** warming then you haven't been looking very hard - start with the studies referenced in AR4 IPCC WG1 report.
That the Greenhouse Effect is real is a scientific given. What additional question do you think such an experiment could resolve? It certainly cannot answer the question of the Earth's climate sensitivity, if that's what you'd like it to.
Pharmachick: "Q2: I am bemused as to why no-one has come out and condemned "graph gate" "
Are you referring to the truncation of post-1960 tree-ring temperature proxy data when assessing the historical temperature record over the past two millennia?
Either way, what is the question that you wanted me to answer here (you didn't provide one)?
There you go again, SecondTime, getting your "science" from climate science denier sites - sites that have fooled you, for example, into believing that the Moon violates the Laws of Physics.
“In contrast to what has been reported in the LA Times and elsewhere, there is no campaign by AGU against climate skeptics or congressional conservatives,” says Christine McEntee, Executive Director and CEO of the American Geophysical Union. “AGU will continue to provide accurate scientific information on Earth and space topics to inform the general public and to support sound public policy development.”
But it didn't work. The tighter they pulled the leash, the quicker we escaped.
Now GE is stuck buying unworkable battery cars that they thought was going to increase demand for electrical generation. The electricity dripping batteries that these clunkers lug around would make GE wealthy as we would be pouring our energy dollars down a drain. Meanwhile, urban governments were all too willing to force taxpayers into building "charging stations" to make sure we are all tapped into an "intelligent grid" like so many pods in the Matrix.
Hydrogen technology, fostered by Bush, is the real answer to energy and pollution.
But the Warmists, Battery Car Promoters and Utilities fought it tooth and nail -- hoping to keep us under their thumb with alarmist scare tactics.
Hydrogen won. Warmists lost.
You go it alone as California has done and all you export are jobs.
The EPA is trying to force the issue with Texas in all but open revolt!
As I said does it matter which room you smoke in?
GHG emissions is a global problem we do cap & trade here and GREEN TARIFFS on imports we will get all the states on board - no one wants to lose another 20 some odd % of their jobs!
And who knows; we may just save the polar bear after all!
A little known threat of long-term, power outages provides a so far unrecognized opportunity for inexpensive green energy to supersede fossil fuels.
The sun has begun a new 11 year sunspot cycle. Emissions have twice this year missed Earth. With more than 500 expected, one could reasonably be expected to hit our geomagnetic field.
NASA suggests the eastern half of the nation might lose electric power for weeks!
See: www.aesopinstitute.org for a few articles and an outline of how we can turn this threat, which will continue for the next decade, into a practical program of decentralized power.
A bold program can generate cost-competitive green energy based on breakthrough technologies now being born.
That can trigger a far more rapid economic recovery and millions of jobs.
Future cars and trucks can become power plants when parked, selling power generated by energy conversion systems that supersede oil. These vehicles may very well pay for themselves as investments.
They can also cost-effectively undercut the need for new coal and nuclear power plants.
This suggests a wise program of incentives might favor systems that lend themselves to distributed generation of electricity close to the point of use.
Similar incentives might help utilities accelerate programs that could minimize damage. A warning system has been developed.
Scientists might consider this alternative perspective. Two goals might be accomplished.
The opening article on the Aesop Institute website explains why.
Think small and local and inexpensive green.
There are alternatives to fossil fuel in the birth canal. With a bit of a push they can be used to address both problems at the same time.