The Climate Post Offers a Rundown of the Week in Climate and Energy News.
Half of Americans polled by researchers at Yale University are woefully ill-informed about climate change, including the 43 percent that believe "if we stopped punching holes in the ozone layer with rockets, it would reduce global warming."
That's the same percentage of Americans who are unaware it takes Earth one year to orbit the sun, so perhaps this poll is about as meaningful as a bowl full of tea leaves. Grist argues the poll indicates Americans are hungry to know more about climate, and once they do, they'll start worrying, while risk expert David Ropeik argues more information won't change anyone's mind.
Where Americans Learn About Climate Science
Everyone wants to pour their climate message into the chasm of ignorance, the Yale study revealed, including Glenn Beck and possibly an oil company-backed group of Evangelicals, who are pushing the notion climate change is a "false religion," says Think Progress.
Meanwhile, Republican West Virginia senate candidate John Raese says global warming is a "myth," and his Democratic opponent, if you recall, recently shot the climate bill.
The National Resource Defense Council unveiled the results of a poll it claims shows voters support candidates who voted for cap-and-trade, but even progressives aren't buying it. The Christian Science Monitor argues climate change simply isn't a big campaign issue, even though Republican challengers to Democrat incumbents are uniformly against its existence.
Goodbye Greenhouse Gas Regulation, Hello Energy Policy
If Republicans take the House, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich) promises to dismantle the House climate change committee and thwart the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
Perhaps there's another plan to bolster clean energy Upton won't be as averse to: a bipartisan proposal issued by think tanks arguing the U.S. should spend billions of dollars on clean energy innovation.
Climate Hawks Gearing Up to Eviscerate Climate Appeasers
A nascent effort to re-brand People Who Care About Climate and Clean Energy as distinct from "environmentalists" has settled on the term Climate Hawks.
China's Clampdown on Exports of Rare Earth Minerals Threatens Global Clean-Tech Industry... Soonish
China has a global monopoly on the "rare earth" minerals without which the global clean-tech industry would grind to a halt, so when rumor hit the wires that it would be reducing exports of the materials, the response in some circles was apoplectic.
The Chinese government immediately moved to deny the reports, but it's clear the issue has reached a turning point: Chinese domination of this market is forcing manufacturers to build factories in China itself, while Chinese media are explaining the environmental destruction wrought by the country's mining of the minerals, which aren't mined outside China because, in general, other countries aren't prepared to deal with the toxic fallout from their extraction and processing.
Export reduction or no, here's the bottom line: "Rare Earths Deposits in China Forecast to Last 15-20 Years, Ministry Says."
New Climate Change Impact Perfect for Remake of "Day After Tomorrow"
Mega-landslides begotten by melting mountains could threaten 39 cities with populations above 100,000 in a warming world. Nearly a third of Western Chinese glaciers could be gone by 2050, with significant impacts for downstream crop production.
Much of the globe, including the U.S., will be threatened by drought within decades, reports the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Meanwhile, "higher-latitude regions from Alaska to Scandinavia are likely to become more moist."
Human influence on the environment, including climate change, means we are now in an era of "megafires," says Popular Mechanics.
Rising temperatures are likely to shift the ranges of both aquatic and terrestrial animals -- at a rate of 430 meters per year, in the case of rattlesnakes and voles.
Zambia became the 18th country to document a record-high temperature in 2010.
The academic tussle over whether or not warmer temperatures lead to more civil wars in Africa continues.
The Climate Post is produced each Thursday by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
There are many reasons why the right and Big Oil are interested in fueling skepticism. These include Arctic drilling, the opening of the Northwest Passage, and Peak Oil, which will catch the deniers flatfooted with price hikes in the face of dwindling supplies.
But perhaps most importantly, alternative energy represents a decentralization of power rather than a concentration. That's the real inconvenient truth. The right can't be for anything that gives more power to people than the institutions who control them.
There are many plans, active and planned. I support them. I also think the CAGW debate is mostly a money game and the "science" of positive feedbacks barely above alchemy. Your tone of, is it irony?, underlines, excuse me to say, a fault of thinking on your part. The Clean energy and oil replacement are not dependent on climate change concerns. Rather- the climate change rackets are parasites on traditional environmental concerns.
Spoken like a true science denier - like an evolution science you completely ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence.
Do you deny evolution science too, Javani?
Sad.
"the embarassing lack of observational evidence for additional CO2 being an important driver of climate"
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.
* Satellite measurements demonstrate that increasing CO2 atmospheric concentrations over recent decades has caused increased retention of heat energy in the atmosphere.
* 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.
* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration 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 (man-made) global warming survived scientific scrutiny.
Again these are all scientific facts. Which again is to say:
The scientific evidence supporting
Well. I would like the citation for that. I bet fifty% chance it shows CO2 increase lagging temperatures.
Like Mr. Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" hockeystick graph.
You'd have lost that bet.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
Javani: "Like Mr. Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" hockeystick graph."
Well. I would like the citation for that.
SecondTime is so confused about global warming science that he thinks that the Moon violates the Laws of Physics.
No, really.
Imagine New York, Washington, D.C., Boston, Chicago, Seattle and most of the Eastern U.S. without power for a period of several weeks or months.
Recently, the current 11 year sunspot cycle began. So far, two solar threat events missed earth. NASA suggests, if either had hit earth's geomagnetic field, 130 million Americans might lose power for many weeks. The cost the first year might equal that of both current wars!
See: http://wwwÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ.aÂeÂsÂoÂpÂiÂÂnÂÂsÂÂtÂÂiÂtÂuÂtÂeÂ.ÂÂoÂrÂÂg
The steps necessary to rapidly reduce dependence on power grids can accelerate development of little known, slowly emerging, potentially extremely inexpensive, green systems.
This opens a politically workable way to accelerate the development of cheap green power.
Focus on that objective. Why would anyone fight it? It offers major new options.
Cheap green power can supersede the fruitless debate over climate change.
And effectively fight Global Warming, boost the economy, generate lots of jobs and reduce dependency on fossil fuels and unstable areas of the globe.
The Aesop website outlines presently hard-to-believe, very low-cost, alternatives that are expected to power homes, businesses, automobiles and trucks.
Future vehicles might become power plants when suitably parked. No wires needed. They will become alternatives to coal and nuclear plants. Even better, they could pay for themselves!
Imagine what could be accomplished once it is recognized cost-competitive paths exist to prevent the little recognized threat of massive power failures!
It is estimated that Venus once had water oceans and was much cooler. When the solar system was younger, the sun was about 30% cooler. The author of the article estimated that as run-away green house warming hit Venus, it took as little as 200,000 years for Venus to go from having water oceans to having the sulfuric acid atmosphere that we see today.
No matter what humans do, the Earth will eventually become unlivable, as the Sun continues to heat up and to expand in its natural cycle of birth and death. By some estimates, this planet has less than one billion years left. However, humans have the capacity to greatly shorten the amount of time that this planet's biosphere is comfortable for living things.