Free-time fun - protesting Exxon

I meant to post this last week after it was on my blog, but I got busy getting ready for a mini-vacation to San Francisco. Besides, you may see me on PBS this fall!

I wasn’t there last year, but two years ago, I joined the protest in front of ExxonMobil’s annual shareholder meeting. The suburban Dallas-based eXXXon meets in downtown Dallas at the Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center.

It was different this year, being back here!

Close-up of me:



This year, as opposed to two years ago, Dallas police etc.let us on the same side of the street as the Meyerson.

The big item on the shareholder agenda this year is the proposal to split eXXXon’s CEO and chairman of the board positions, to require them to be held by two different people. Current CEO and Chairman Rex Tillerson strongly opposes the move.

I had a chance to get interviewed about this, and more general comments on Peak Oil and global warming, for PBS’s Frontline. The episode, whether my comments make the cut or not, is supposed to air in October.

Me as part of the protest group:



The “division of powers” proposal, which most other Big Oil companies have already, got 42 percent a year ago, and with the backing of some 200 members of the Rockefeller family, maybe it will get over the top this time.

Assuming Tillerson would keep the CEO spot, a new chairman might do little more than give lip service to both global warming and Peak Oil.

But, lip service is better than no service.


Other protestors:



About 40 people were there at various times when I was there, including members of Iraq Veterans Against the War. Southern Christian Leadership President Charles Steele Jr. was among people who spoke.

There's more: "Free-time fun - protesting Exxon" >>

Stealing the sunshine (hypothesis) from climate change deniers

[x-posted on The 2 Dollar Bill]

The bulk of scientists have been suggesting for at least a few months that solar output has not been the responsible factor in climate change... much to the dismay of climate change deniers and skeptics.

Today, a more notable report came to light (no pun intended) from the University of Lancaster (UK) which says scientists found there has been

no significant link between [changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature] in the last 20 years.

And

Over the course of one of the Sun's natural 11-year cycles, there was a weak correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover - but cosmic ray variability could at the very most explain only a quarter of the changes in cloudiness.

And for the following cycle, no correlation was found.

"This work is important as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data," commented Dr Giles Harrison from Reading University, a leading researcher in the physics of clouds.

His own research, looking at the UK only, has also suggested that cosmic rays make only a very weak contribution to cloud formation.

The Svensmark hypothesis has also been attacked in recent months by Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory. He showed that over the last 20 years, solar activity has been rising, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its vast assessment of climate science last year, concluded that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of the Sun by a factor of about 13 to one.

Meanwhile, it's not just Iraq that's got folks up in arms. They're tired of the immovable position of the Bush Administration on Climate Change.

The question is: Is Carbon Dioxide (CO²) dangerous to humankind?

Obviously, we exhale it. But on the platform of climate change, is CO² dangerous? Some state's attorneys general believe so. They AG's from 18 states, two cities and 11 environmental groups stated

in a court filing Wednesday that the EPA has not issued a decision on regulation. Their court filing seeks to compel the EPA to act within 60 days.

“The EPA’s failure to act in the face of these incontestable dangers is a shameful dereliction of duty,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

The Sierra Club, which is also part of the lawsuit, accused the Bush administration of favoring industry. "While this administration has done everything possible to make a mockery of the rule of law in this country, it’s still stunning that they refuse to yield even to the high court," said Sierra Club legal counsel David Bookbinder.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said the Supreme Court required the agency to evaluate how it would regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and other vehicles, but set no deadline.

The plaintiffs argue that there's enough data and information to make an informed decision now.

The Supreme Court ruling requires the agency to regulate carbon dioxide if it determines it is a danger to public health and welfare....

...Senior EPA employees have told congressional investigators in the House about a tentative finding from early December that CO2 posed a danger because of its climate impact. They said a draft regulation was distributed to the Transportation Department and the White House.

The EPA officials, in interviews with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said those findings were put on hold abruptly.

Surprise, surprise.

So if Congress won't act, perhaps the States will. It's beginning to sound like a full court press in the finals days of the Administration. Perhaps by next January the United States will have some respectable (or nearly respectable) environmental and climate change policy that will help us move toward more sustainable levels of emissions.

This will be very interesting to watch.

For a great writeup on the history of the climate change "debate" which appeared in Newsweek a few months ago, read this. It should be required reading for anyone running for office, to say the least.

There's more: "Stealing the sunshine (hypothesis) from climate change deniers" >>

Zero-emisson robots to mow the back forty this summer

[x-posted on The 2 Dollar Bill]

There's nothing like the smell of fresh cut grass and small-engine exhaust in the heat of a summer afternoon.

But the mower you're using is likely a summer-emission monster. The EPA estimates the average push mower gives off as much pollution per hour as 11 automobiles, while commercial mowers emit the equivalent of 34 vehicles over the same period of time.

So wouldn't this mower (seen in Knight Rider colors) be sweet?

She's self-propelled. Solar-powered. Heck, it even trims the clippings to "small irregular patterns" to help fertilize the lawn. (Heck, mine does that. Without the small and irregular part though. And let's pause for a brief moment for a reality check here... Does a mower really clip? I think it applies a death-whack via a sharp whirling ninja blade. Think Mortal Kombat here. If grass could scream...)

Back to the story...

The Husqvarna Group is now pushing (or not) the mower which uses as much energy as a "standard" light bulb. (Ah yes... but is that a CFL or incandescent? I knew I could trip them up).

The Brits web site has this nifty model... but it's not the solar-hybrid dealy-whopper mentioned here. But even that is better than the American version we have available.

From the UK Telegraph:

While not the first robotic mower to go on sale in Britain, the Automower is the most environmentally friendly, claims Husqvarna.

Bengt Andersson, the company's chief executive, said: "This is as green as mowing gets, without compromising on performance. Ninety per cent of Automower is recyclable, it eliminates the need for fertilisers, it is silent and it delivers perfect results with zero emissions."

Dubbed the Automower, it comes close to doing just about everything except cook you breakfast. And for those mowing in the wrong part of town... or leaving the mower behind in the wrong part of town... not to worry.

From GizMag:

The Automower is also weather proof and features an in-built theft protection system that requires a personal 4-digit code to be entered before the unit will operate.

Husqvarna has been producing robotic lawnmowers since 1995 and around 50,000 of the quiet, emission-free garden robots are already in use.

Current price: somewhere on the order of $3,000 to $5,000 clams. Ouch. But could it be worth a week of your time that you'd otherwise be spending behind the mower?

And men, the Automower... was invented by a woman named Towe Ressman. (Cue the Tim Allen grunt).

For you think global / act local peeps, this could be the practical solution to pushing grandma's souped-up rotary blade model this summer. Me? I'm stuck putting the "man" into manual labor.

See you over the fence.

There's more: "Zero-emisson robots to mow the back forty this summer" >>

Global warming skeptics funding source traced to big business

[x-posted on The 2 Dollar Bill]

More information is coming to light on The Heartland Institute's global warming denial conference this past weekend on which I posted previously. For those who are skeptical, it's an important read.

From MediaTransparency.org:

The Heartland Institute

Over the past few decades, The Heartland Institute (website), described by the New York Times as "a Chicago group whose antiregulatory philosophy has long been embraced by, and financially supported by, various industries and conservative donors," has been in the forefront of the movement of corporate-sponsored conservative think tanks, public policy institute and academic researchers first denying global warming existed, more recently palming off climate change as a natural phenomenon, and all the while demonizing those bringing global warming to the attention of the public.

In April 2000, Z magazine published a piece I wrote about the Heartland Institute that was written for CultureWatch, a monthly newsletter which from May 1993 through October 2000, tracked right-wing movements. Titled "Powerful Right-Wing Alliance Challenges Climate Justice: Anti-environmentalists join forces," the story noted that Heartland's Environment News and New Hope Environmental Services Inc., publishers of World Climate Report (with funding from the Greening Earth Society), had joined forces to publish Environment & Climate News, whose tag line is "the monthly publication for new-era environmentalists."

One of the publication's essential functions is to act as a mouthpiece for industry as it tackles head-on the issue of global warming. The first issue presents two stinging critiques by two of "the nation's leading scientists...on global climate change": "Kyoto's Chilling Effects" by Patrick J. Michaels, PhD, University of Virginia environmental science professor, and "Link between deaths and climate weakening over time" by Robert E. Davis, PhD, associate professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.

There is quite a bit more on the investigation into the Heartland Institute. And it's worth reading.

One should always, always, always know where your science data comes from... especially in this day of spin.

There's more: "Global warming skeptics funding source traced to big business" >>

Global warming skeptics live among us

[x-posted on The 2 Dollar Bill]

I was invited to talk at a group lunch in a small town between here and there today. We'll call it Anytown, Any State. The food was fried. Haven't had a better pork tenderloin sandwich ever. Ever.

At the crossroads of two major Any State US Highways... people gather once a month to protect their rights as former employees of a large corporation. And they meet for fellowship. Did I mention the fried food?

As the invited speaker, I did my somewhat normal 'It's Spring! Here's what you should know about the twisting funnels of death in Any State"... adapted for the region which I was visiting.

Toward the end of my time, I open the floor to questions. Inevitably, the older crowds want to discuss global warming or climate change. And they have one informational source to cite. Only one. And they wish to smear only one former Veep. Only one.

Care to guess?

As they ask their questions... I pass on what I feel is credible science. When I don't know, I say "I don't know, but I can point you in the right direction or find out". When my answers conflict with what they've heard on the radio, though... trouble is afoot. Brows furrow. Stares harden.

So today, I went out on a limb a bit more than normal. Without asking where they got their "information"... I said in closing, it's very important to me that I understand where I get my science information. You have to consider the source.



Nature magazine. National Geographic. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

I asked if these were organizations or publications we could all trust? The group seemed to agree.

So I stepped out from the safety of the trunk....

But AM radio with Rush Limbaugh is not science. His message is laced with agenda and misinformation that is easily contradicted with science journals. And if you hear that scientists are divided on whether or not the globe is warming... you should find another source of information. The globe is warming. Now the questions are: "Why, exactly, is that happening... and what can be done to reduce the effects of climate change so that we may continue our way of life as we prefer it"?

As expected, the main interrogator, the Limbaugh-font-of-knowledge publicly pish-poshed me... yet, an entire side of the room lit up with applause.

To say I was shocked wouldn't cut it.


The experience reminded me that it's time again to brush up on my global warming apologetics.

I wasn't on my game today... certainly unprepared for a full-on Dr. Limbaugh, PhD, Director of Climate Change studies in North America thesis.


One argument that seems to be getting plenty of airtime lately is the "it's the sun's fault" idea. So I'll start there.

THE SUN IS WARMING ALL THE PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM, EARTH INCLUDED. IT'S THE SUN'S FAULT.

The idea is that sunspots, or the variable brightness of our nearest star, could be affecting the incoming solar radiation on our planet and the rest of the system.

Yet, climate models already incorporate the variability of solar output on Earth's climate.

From National Geographic:

The sun's energy output varies slightly as sunspots wax and wane on the star's surface.


But sunspot-driven changes to the sun's power are simply too small to account for the climatic changes observed in historical data from the 17th century to the present, research suggests.


The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output.


"If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate," Foukal said.


The researchers obtained accurate daily sunspot measurements dating as far back as 1874 from institutions such as the Mount Wilson Observatory near Pasadena, California, and the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, England.

Other scientists are quoted in the article saying we don't know what else might be coming from the sun to create such an effect, but it's possible. True. We probably don't know all there is to know about the sun.

MARS AND PLUTO ARE WARMING, JUST AS THE OTHER PLANETS ARE... IT'S NOT OUR FAULT

So it must be the sun. Except we discounted that (for the most part) above.

From the Grist Mill (accepting a left-bend in rhetoric here since I think it's cited science w/o propaganda):

As for the alleged extraterrestrial warming, there is extremely little evidence of a global climate change on Mars. The only piece I'm aware of is a series of photographs of a single icy region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a six year period (about three Martian years).


Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice, and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region on another planet strains credulity. And in fact, the relevant scientists believe the observation described above is the result of a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles, like what happened during the earth's glacial cycles.


See Global Warming on Mars? from RealClimate for much more detail about this issue.


Turning to the outer reaches of the solar system: in the icy cold and lonely Kuiper Belt was observed a difference in Pluto's atmospheric thickness, inferred from two occultation observations 14 years apart. But a cursory glance at Pluto's orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from observations spanning less than even a single season, let alone enough years to even establish the climate's normal state.

A RECENT PRESS RELEASE FROM THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE SAID GLOBAL WARMING WAS DISPROVEN

Oh really? And the rest of us missed that somehow?

How about this nugget for thought...

Skeptics gathered in New York this weekend for a global warming denial conference. They paid their speakers to speak... unlike other science conferences where being asked to speak IS the honor. From Source Watch:

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems". [1] It campaigns on what it calls "junk science", "common-sense environmentalism" (i.e. anti-Kyoto, pro-GM), the privatization of public services, smokers' rights (anti-tobacco tax, denial of problems from passive smoking), the introduction of school vouchers, and the deregulation of health care insurance. It also provides an online resource for finding right-wing think tank policy documents called PolicyBot.

And these are the people who gathered in New York, as described by an article in Harpers Weekly in 1995:

The skeptics assert flatly that their science is untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded campaign of denial they have become interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation. Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized.

AL GORE ISN'T GREEN
To which I always say... it's not about Al Gore. It's about the planet and our way of life. Gore may be a messenger... on or off message at times. But he's still just a messenger. There are many others to listen to if you don't like Gore's "dash D" behind his name.



Well... it's not a great apologetic list... but it's a start and it has the brain juices going again. Stand by for more soon.

There's more: "Global warming skeptics live among us" >>

Texas - more polluting than California and Pennsylvania combined

Not on smog, soot or ozone, but on what our Preznit-elect said in 2000 was a pollutant: carbon dioxide. If it were its own nation, the idea of which many native Texans like to brag about and many other Americans sometimes fervently wish were actually the case, it would be the world’s eighth-largest global warming polluter. It’s actually slipped from its No. 7 spot of five years ago, but only because of Canada’s massive atmospheric destruction to extract oil sands.

Here’s a breakdown of why:

Considering its role in the U.S. economy, it's no surprise Texas ranks as it does. As the nation's leading producer of energy, and with more cattle and oil refineries than any other state, it is essentially America's power plant, gas pump and beef basket. Yes, all those cows play a part. While many environmentalists focus on the methane (another greenhouse gas) produced by cows, the raising of cattle also contributes to CO2 emissions (the burning of fuel to transport cattle and meat, etc.). A study released last summer by Japanese scientists showed that production of just 1 kilogram of beef results in more CO2 emissions than going for a three-hour drive while leaving all the lights on at home.

Simple answer: eat less beef. Another reason is, if you have to eat meat, it only takes 4-5 pounds of plant food to put a pound of weight on a chicken or hog. It takes 8 pounds of feed with a cow.

But the problem isn’t just with farting cows in the country. Read on below the fold:

Here’s the real problem today, though and it’s in urban Texas:

But it's not just industry and agriculture that give Texas such an outsize carbon footprint. Texans epitomize America's penchant for overconsumption, so much so that they've even coined their own phrase for superlarge portions: Texas-sized. The state's 23.5 million residents use nearly 3,000 more kilowatt-hours of electricity every year than the average American and a higher percentage of them drive large, gas-guzzling vehicles. Of the 20 million registered vehicles in Texas, one in four is a pickup truck. Of the 245 million vehicles registered in the United States, only 16 percent are pickups, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Last year light trucks made up 61 percent of all new vehicles (both personal and commercial) sold in Texas, compared to just over half of total vehicle sales in the country.

Nearly a third of Texas's carbon emissions come from transportation. With so much wide-open space, Texas hasn’t needed the kind of urban planning that promotes density. Rather, it is a state of far-flung towns and cities, connected by highways and with practically no mass transit. Air quality has suffered as a result; by some estimates more than half of all Texans live in areas where the air is unsafe to breathe, as defined by the EPA's Clean Air Act.

And, here’s the attitude that seeps from Gov. Helmethair (Rick Perry) on down:

Even in the reddest of Red States, one would think that such a health hazard would cause Texas to get serious about air pollution. But it is one of only 15 states without a climate action plan in place or even under consideration. This at a time when some of the most aggressive state plans have taken shape under Republican governors, according to national climate protection groups. In 2006, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger muscled through the most ambitious carbon cap-and-trade plan of any state in the country, aimed at reducing statewide CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Last summer Florida’s GOP Gov. Charlie Crist signed executive orders to slash the state's greenhouse-gas emissions to 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. In Minnesota, Gov. Tim Pawlenty last year signed a law requiring state utilities to generate a quarter of their power from renewable sources by 2025, and in Connecticut, Gov. Jodi Rell’s Energy Vision initiative calls for 20 percent of all energy used and sold in the state to come from clean or renewable sources by 2020.

Result?

Last year the Texas Association of Manufacturers and Houston-based Exxon Mobil successfully lobbied against a bill that would have provided incentives to homeowners and businesses to install solar panels. The Republican-held state legislature even voted down a bill that would have allowed cities to increase their sales tax in order to fund the construction of light rail systems, for fear of appearing to be seen as raising taxes. When a Democratic state senator from Austin proposed a bill that would have merely set up a task force to study climate change, it was defeated thanks to fierce opposition from the business community, including the Texas Oil and Gas Association and Texas Automobile Dealers Association.

Contrary to Perry’s feeble joke attempt that the biggest source of global warming is Al Gore’s mouth, it’s his own flapping trap that’s the problem.

Help may be on the horizon, though. The Peak Oil horizon. Oil prices staying over $100 a barrel will force more more Dallasite, Houstonian, and even Austinite Red State/neck driver, all of whom are such titty-babies they slow their pickups and SUVs down to half a mile per hour for speed bumps, to junk their gas guzzlers which will never see the likes of an unpaved road, and buy cars instead.

There's more: "Texas - more polluting than California and Pennsylvania combined" >>

NOAA says a warmer Atlantic means fewer landfalling hurricanes

[x-posted on The 2 Dollar Bill]

On Tuesday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released findings that an increase in ocean temperature in the Atlantic Ocean, among others, would likely lead to FEWER landfalling hurricanes in the United States. [For recent trends, see the USA TODAY graphic on the left].

“We looked at U.S. landfalling hurricanes because it is the most reliable Atlantic hurricane measurement over the long term,” says Chunzai Wang, a physical oceanographer and climate scientist with NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Miami and lead author on the article. “Using data extending back to the middle nineteenth century, we found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. landfalling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up. This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, which could result in fewer U.S. landfalling hurricanes.” For the article, Wang worked with Sang-Ki Lee of the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies-University of Miami.

In terms of hurricane strength, Wang notes, “The vertical wind shear is not the only factor affecting Atlantic hurricane activity, although it is an important one.” Other factors include atmospheric humidity, sea level pressure, and sea surface temperature.

This study also suggests that where the global ocean warming occurs is important for determining the vertical wind shear in the Atlantic hurricane main development region — within the 10°-20° North latitude belt that stretches from west Africa to Central America. Whether future global warming increases Atlantic hurricane activity will probably depend on the relative role induced by sustained long-term warming over the tropical oceans.

Observations from 1854 to 2006 show a warming of sea surface temperature occurring almost everywhere over the global ocean, with large warming in tropical regions of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans. Warmer waters in the tropical Pacific, Indian and North Atlantic oceans produce opposite effects upon vertical wind shear; that is, warming in the tropical Pacific and Indian oceans increase vertical wind shear in the Atlantic hurricane main development region, while warming in the tropical North Atlantic decreases vertical wind shear. Overall, warming in the Pacific and Indian oceans is of greater impact and produces increased levels of vertical wind shear which suppresses Atlantic hurricane activity.

In order for a hurricane to form, three basic properties need to exist in the atmosphere:

1. Warm, deep water. At least 200' deep, 80º F or greater.


2. Warm, unstable air.


3. Low, or little wind shear. That means a general wind flow at low, mid and high levels of the atmosphere will little to no change in direction or speed.

In this case, it sounds as if the increased wind shear will be the downfall of landfalling hurricanes.

What clearly jumped out at me was the term landfalling. As I like to say during reports... you can have 10 Category Fives lurking over Davey Jones' locker, but if they don't make landfall, who gives a rip?

But for those of us who reside stateside, a rising global ocean temperature, specifically in the above named basins, may mean fewer landfalling tropical cyclones. And with the recent explosion in coastal population, that's certainly a good thing for insurance rates.

The flip side, and in my mind... more importantly... it means a major redistribution in fresh water for the Southern and Southeastern United States. In other words, I'd assume that fewer landfalling tropical cyclones means fewers instances of widespread, heavy precipitation events that allow reservoirs to fill, crops to grow and communities to survive. I.e. more drought in the Southeast.

I've mentioned before that one of the best basic weather books on the market is The Weather Book by Jack Williams. Online weather understanding tools at USA Today are equally awesome:

How a hurricane forms (flash animation)

Deadliest hurricanes since 1492

National Hurricane Center Hurricane Archive

and most important to this story....

How wind shear rips apart a hurricane

There's more: "NOAA says a warmer Atlantic means fewer landfalling hurricanes" >>

American Geophysical Union says climate is out of balance

[x-posted on The Two Dollar Bill]

Add in another 50,000 concerned scientists from 137 countries to the rolls of those who believe in climate change or global warming.

The AGU (American Geophysical Union) issued a statement saying

changes in temperature, sea level and rainfall were best explained by the increased concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities...

The AGU also suggested that carbon emissions should be cut by 50% within the next 100 years (by 2100).

In 2003, the AGU called for greater understanding of climate change, but didn't go as far as to say definitively that global warming was occurring... much less suggest necessary steps to reduce the effects or point the finger at the causes of global warming.

And in the statement, the AGU clearly puts forth blame on the human population.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO₂ must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government.

This comes in to the hopper today along with news that Antarctica is melting much faster than previously thought. And fast enough not that glacial melt is making massive pools under the ice sheet... and outpacing Greenland in the phase change.

Two processes are speeding the melt there:

1. As ice melts and makes glacial pools, it absorbs more sunlight than the icepack... and heats up at a faster rate.... helping to chip away at the icepack with an ever increasing rate.


2. As the ice pack breaks off or calves into the ocean, the ice farther inland isn't held back as it once was... and increases the rate of motion toward the sea.

On the other end of the world, some suggestions by scientists are that the Arctic will feature ice-free Summers by 2013.

From the BBC:

...But it is has become apparent in recent years that the real, observed rate of summer ice melting is now starting to run well ahead of the models. The minimum ice extent reached in September 2007 shattered the previous record for ice withdrawal set in 2005, of 5.32 million square km. The long-term average minimum, based on data from 1979 to 2000, is 6.74 million square km. In comparison, 2007 was lower by 2.61 million square km, an area approximately equal to the size of Alaska and Texas combined, or the size of 10 United Kingdoms.

While melting sea ice will mean a redistribution of ocean water at higher levels world wide, it does have very interesting implications for world trade. Shipping lanes from Northern Canada, Alaska, Russia and beyond will emerge for at least a few months... something we've never seen in the modern age.

Still, the unknown looms. Even recently updated computer models aren't keeping up. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University is an expert Arctic ice and notes

"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."

The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year's AGU Fall Meeting.

Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.

"My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."

And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out."

Quicktime movie link of decreasing sea ice

Real climate.org

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) climate links

There's more: "American Geophysical Union says climate is out of balance" >>

E.U. to call Bush out on climate

Unless Bush agrees to specific emissions cuts at Bali E.U. members are threatening to boycott U.S. led climate talks next month:

“No result in Bali means no Major Economies Meeting,” said Sigmar Gabriel, a top EU environment official, referring to a series of separate climate talks initiated by President Bush in September.

“We are a bit disappointed that all the world is still waiting for the United States,” added Humberto Rosa, Portugal’s Secretary of State for Environment. Portugal holds the rotating EU presidency and Rosa is the EU’s chief negotiator at the Bali talks.

Meanwhile, we’ve already got the White House spin accusing the E.U. being the obstructionists.

”I think those that suggest that we magically find an agreement on a metric when we are just starting ... that in itself is a blocking effort,”said Jim Connaughton, the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. “We need to free up this conversation so we can have the deliberation to find as much consensus and collective engagement.”

Puhleeze.

Because of this, I doubt it will change anything in Washington if the EU boycotts Bush’s charade. The only thing that might actually work is if World Trade Organization rules allowed tariffs to address pollution or CO2 levels, but, unfortunately, that ain’t the case — yet.

I think the next round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, talks, needs to discuss exactly that.

There's more: "E.U. to call Bush out on climate" >>

Iraq War affecting global warming

I didn’t realize just how much fuel our troops were using until Michael Klare spelled it out. Try 16 gallons of oil per soldier per day — four times what we used per soldier in the Gulf War, and equivalent to the average daily use of the entire nation of Bangladesh.

Besides the massive amount of CO2 for global warming this generates, it also illustrates something else.

We can’t fight our way to oil independence. The world’s most oil-dependent army has the greatest risk of grinding to a halt.

Klare says that the Iraq War has been the single biggest detriment to the U.S. addressing global warming. I’d say the same about Peak Oil.

There's more: "Iraq War affecting global warming" >>

Business group: CO2 cuts don’t have to be socially pricey

The McKinsey Group, a consulting firm, claims the U.S. can make significant carbon dioxide cuts without major lifestyle changes. McKinsey says increased fuel efficiency in cars, much greater use of fluorescent lights, better heating/air conditioning/appliance efficiency and building insulation, and carbon sequestration will do the trick.

Well, I’m with you on the first three.

Now, will the Big Three, and green-traitor Toyota, stop fighting CAFE standard increases?

Will the federal government pass legislation to phase out incandescent light bulbs and to set appliance efficiency and building standards?

And, will McKinsey find any reputable organization to guarantee that once-sequestered CO2 will remain always-sequestered CO2?

And, as the article notes, if electric utilities have to pay the costs of sequestration, how will the poor be kept from being the most hurt by electric bill increases?

The devil’s always in the details, isn’t it?

There's more: "Business group: CO2 cuts don’t have to be socially pricey" >>

The Blue Man Group turns green

x-posted on The 2 Dollar Bill

The Blue Man Group speaks out on Global Warming:

h/t to Greg Laden @ Science Blogs

There's more: "The Blue Man Group turns green" >>

IPCC releases instant-guide to stop climate change

SANTA COMES EARLY THIS YEAR
A clear, concise statement on climate change [pdf]– why it’s happening and what the underlying science says will happen if action isn’t taken immediately. What more could one ask for?

That’s what delegates from 140 countries produced Friday in a summary report referred to an “instant guide” consisting of 20 pages of the most important need-to-know data, science and computer projections assimilated over the past six years from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon

stressed the report makes clear that “concerted and sustained action now can still avoid some of the most catastrophic scenarios” in the IPCC forecasts. (Science Daily)

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE CHANGE MUDPUDDLE
Download the long-form report here.

The long-form report and its summary were released on Saturday, November 17.

From USA Today:

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” the summary begins, in a statement meant to dispel any skepticism about the reality of climate change, said participants in the meeting.

The document doesn’t contain any new data since the previous meeting. Even so, over 40 authors worked together and compromised on the exact wording to simmer down more than 3,000 pages to get to the final brief, which was presided by the IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri of India, Al Gore’s co-recipient of the this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

WHAT’S UNDER THE HOOD?
While the brief doesn’t commit any nation to a course of action, it’s meant to provide a foundation of understanding for ongoing and upcoming political talks. It also provides a map for industrial and developing nations to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.

From the NYT:

“You look to a synthesis report to provide clarity, to clarify what was obscure in previous reports,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University. “Now, how can we take these findings and formulate a policy response that’s quick enough and big enough?”

The IPCC intends the report to help begin a political process of international cooperation to control global warming.

WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME?
Probably not much in the near term. Why? The United States delegations among only a few others were resistant to key wording surrounding the cause of climate change.

Again from NYT:

While the United States, Saudi Arabia and China tried to change the text in order to play down the consequences of global warming, developing nations — which will bear the initial brunt of climate change — were much more forceful than at previous meetings in opposing these efforts, one scientist who was in the negotiating room said.

"I suspect that will continue,” [one scientist in the room] said. “As they feel more and more threatened by the sea and the storms they will insist that, as one of them put it, ‘We do not want this report to be warm and fuzzy when the reality is cold and risky,’ or something like that,” he said.

That remains to be seen. Remember that the United States failed to ratify or back the Kyoto accord.

Australia and the U.S. were among the largest of nations who have decided against Kyoto in the last few years… doing so for “economic concerns”. You’ll also recall that the PM of Australia and the Bush Administration cited the emission exemption given to China (estimated to be the largest CO2 emitter on the planet) as reasons for not ratifying the agreement.

And while we remain under the control of the Bush Administration… there will likely be no federal action toward reducing national emissions. Or at least it won’t be easy.

SAVED BY THE STATES?
It may come down to States’ rights. Take for example the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the Northeastern US.

The group consists of 11 states that have made agreements to

design and implement a flexible, market-based cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in the Northeast United States. RGGI will be the first mandatory cap-and-trade program in the United States to reduce emissions of the gases that cause global warming.

Not bad.

Meanwhile, on the other coast… Governor Schwarzenegger is pushing the environmental issue harder than anything else during his term in California. In fact, he’s planned a climate forum with Al Gore to take place next month in New Hampshire.

From USA Today:

The forum, which is still in the planning stages, is being designed so presidential candidates from both parties will attend. Adam Mendelsohn, a spokesman for the governor, said the format was not completely developed, but the former vice president was handling the Democratic candidates, while Schwarzenegger would handle the Republicans.

Many cities and smaller communities are also enacting their own legislation.

AND STILL THE WINGNUTS PROTEST
Meanwhile, in Kentucky… Jim Gooch (D-District 12, KY)... yes, a democrat, presided over a menagerie that brought shame upon the legislature of the Bluegrass State when he sought to discredit anthropogenic climate change.

From the Lexington-Herald Leader:

Chairman Jim Gooch, D-Providence, a longtime ally of the coal industry, said he purposefully did not invite anyone who believes in global warming to testify.

"You can only hear that the sky is falling so many times," said Gooch, whose post makes him the House Democrats' chief environmental strategist. "We hear it every day from the news media, from the colleges, from Hollywood."

Neither of Gooch's invited panelists was a scientist.

Who was on the Gooch-list? Lord Christopher Monckton, a British skeptic… and James Taylor, lawyer and fellow with the Heartland Institute, a free-market think-tank in Chicago partially funded by ExxonMobil.

Monckton, who recommended locking up those with AIDS in the 80s,

quoted the Bible and quickly recited math formulas as he accused Gore and IPCC scientists of lying to make warming seem worse than it is. The Earth admittedly has warmed a small amount during recent decades, Monckton said, but that's unrelated to carbon dioxide -- it might be due to especially strong solar rays -- and it should end soon.

And Taylor suggested that

most scientists don't believe in global warming. Not that warming is bad, he said. Hotter weather means more vegetation and crops and more diversity of wildlife, as in the tropical rain forests, he said. He distributed a report that urged Americans to burn more coal, oil and natural gas so "our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed."

Pure garbage. Or rubbish in Monckton’s case.

It’s not the first time we’ve heard non-scientific remarks in the guise of fact and logic. Just last week, founder of The Weather Channel John Colman (now a San Diego TV meteorologist) made a public statement decrying anthropogenic climate change as “the greatest scam in history”.

Gooch is also of the belief that coal mining in Eastern Kentucky isn’t destroying the Appalachian mountains.

But I bet he believes in the coal lobbyists that come to call. Kentucky is the third largest coal-producing state in the Union. So recognizing that carbon dioxide, which comes from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels, is likely leading to global climate change… would be unfathomable.

Even if you’re a democrat.

How 'bout the wingnuts stand down and pick a new topic of denial? I hear that Intelligent Design is debatable in Kentucky. Oh wait, that’s where the creation museum is. Maybe try gravity… that’s only a theory.

Meanwhile, that “no-so-huge warming trend” Gooch would ask you ignore… is still on target to surpass some of the worst-case-scenario models the IPCC brought to light with the condensed report yesterday.

There's more: "IPCC releases instant-guide to stop climate change" >>

Scientists who back Global Warming are on the take

[Cross-posted on The 2 Dollar Bill]

by Sniderman

... at least that what John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel says.

[Read the statement on his weather web page at KUSI in San Diego.
Scroll way down. At the top of the page, you can watch him discuss it on the San Diego news.]

The Hubbub
First, here's the statement in its entirety [bold emphasis mine]:

COMMENTS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

By John Coleman
jcoleman@kusi.com

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... It is a SCAM.

Some scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15-minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science, the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As temperatures rise, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern will all fail to occur as predicted, and everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

The background of the message
My first thoughts after hearing about this statement from weather buddy Sabs was it was very clear that Mr. Coleman was a meteorologist. Not a climatologist.

Plain and simple stuff here... we who study weather are meteorologists and deal in the small time-scale changes in the weather. Mainly on the scale of a week... perhaps, in a stretch a period of 14 days... but even that is a "trend", which then leads to a quasi-short-range climatic interpretation.

Climatology, at least in the terms of Global Warming, is long-range... on the order of decades at the least... but mostly on the order of centuries.

Mr. Coleman, by his own admission, didn't do the research either. Nor have I.

So why has Coleman been noticed?
Coleman's buddy Joe D’Aleo, a Certified Consulting Meteorologist through the American Meteorological Society (of which I'm a member and seal holder) runs a web site: ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project and seems to have given Coleman a platform of higher prominence.

ICECAP is a website set up to refute Global Warming with the pretense of being completely scientific. It even sports a nifty logo that has a DECREASING trend of whatever is plotted.

I've checked it out, and will continue to look at it with the hope of seeing all angles. The scientific support listed shows many who are known to be climate-change skeptics... i.e. well-known hurricane-season-predictor Dr. Bill Gray. I don't know the positions of all the scientists, as some are recognizable... and others are not. Interestingly, Dr. Anthony Lupo of the University of Missouri-Columbia is present on the ICECAP List. I am unfamiliar with his belief on GW as well.

Mr. D'Aleo is also well-known to be a climate-change skeptic in the weather profession. However, I do not call into question his expertise in anyway.

Is there an "official position" on Global Warming in the weather community?
While not illegal or unheard of, there remains a great deal of disagreement among television meteorologists... and perhaps the larger weather community... on the issue of global warming. The American Meteorological Society issued an informational statement on 1 February 2007 saying:

... there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.

Policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of the impacts of climate change. Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. Some continued climate change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in managing our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

The overarching organization to which many of us belong suggests that we keep an open mind.

Debunking the debunker
But back to Mr. Coleman and the main issue of this post...

Mr. Coleman seems to prefer the word "SCAM". He apparently uses it in his ice-breaker comments on San Diego weather according to his bio:

"Being a TV weatherman in San Diego is an outrageous scam," says KUSI NEWS' 6, 10 and 11 PM weathercaster. Then he laughs. He knows there is plenty of truth in his joke, but he also knows its a long way from the whole story.

While that's fine to say... I find it curious that he's also used that word in CAPS on his climate statement.

Next, I take issue... in a major way... with Coleman's accusation that (in first two paragraphs) any scientist who's worked on research that's developing a conclusion of Global Warming is on the take in some way. Are you kidding me? And where do I sign up? I'd like to get my kids a bigger Christmas present this year!

I'll be the first to agree that not all research is done in the best interest of the people, in pure honest, Scientific Method form. We hear about that all the time.

But to make the leap that not one, but most (perhaps all) of these researchers have used their findings to better position themselves financially is outlandish and irresponsible. And at that point, I found Mr. Coleman's statement to lack any validity.

Though my digging on the web tonight, I found Mr. Coleman's unclassy feelings toward The Weather Channel.

John also cooked up the idea of a cable channel devoted to nothing but weather and spent six years developing "The Weather Channel" on cable. "That's my baby", he says. "The bad guys took it away from me, but they can't steal the fact that it was my idea and I started it and ran it for the first year. I put everything I had into making TWC the success it is."

That, by itself, isn't wrong. But in the context of this flurry of anti-GW excitement... it's interesting to note simply because of Dr. Heidi Cullen's statement, and the unmistakable angle TWC takes on climate change.

Anyone who's been a loyal TWC viewer since Mr. Coleman's tenure surely has noticed many changes on the channel. That must really anger Mr. Coleman. His statement couldn't be more clear on that.

Meanwhile, Meteorologist Ray Ban, also a member of the AMS and respected colleague, issued a bland statement on TWC's Climate section. While his comments aren't that important... the hate that spews in the comments section is typical of those who think that GW is a "SCAM" as Mr. Coleman does.

Unfortunately, Mr. Coleman's statement comes off as most conspiracy theories do... painfully off target. As Denialism.com's Mark Hoofnagle says,

I'm really impressed. Not only do we have every climate scientist lying, and their "friends in government" steering research grants their way (he doesn't know how grants are awarded clearly), but he manages to pull in every single media organization short of Fox news and Governor Schwarzenegger! I think I even detect a little bit of the Galileo gambit mixed with Gore-derangement syndrome in that last bit.

On Mark's suggestion, I'm going to fold up my tin foil hat right now.

Mr. Coleman, I'm sorry, sir... but I think it's time for you to sit down. For the rest of you, I think we have more than a few scientists to listen to... and more than dozens of papers to read.

I, for one, am not finished listening to and reading new research... and continue to keep an open mind about the possibilities our terribly intricate planet (and her atmosphere) has to show us.

[To see more images like these, go to learningfundementals.com]

There's more: "Scientists who back Global Warming are on the take" >>

A planet with a worsening gas problem

posted by Sniderman

[Cross-posted on The 2 Dollar Bill]

It may not be a doomsday prediction yet, but it's not great news.

CARBON SINKS AREN'T KEEPING UP
We've all heard about the climate models predictions, but lately... new data suggests that the models might be painting a rosy picture. In a paper [pdf] released by the National Academy of Sciences this past Thursday, researchers say that

what's going on now in the real world is surpassing the assumptions of the climate models...

... and that economic activity is still becoming more carbon-intensive. Since 2000, carbon output per dollar of productivity has been increasing by 0.3% per year, whereas during the previous 30 years, it was dropping by an average of 1.3% per year. The result, the team discovered, is that atmospheric carbon concentrations are now increasing by 1.93 parts per million each year--the fastest rate of buildup since monitoring activities began in 1959 and considerably higher than the 1.58-ppm average for the 1980s and the 1.49 ppm for the 1990s.

THIS REALLY SINKS!
So carbon sinks may not be keeping up with civilization's carbon production.


What's a carbon sink? Something that uses Carbon Dioxide--CO₂... and removes it from the atmosphere. There are plenty of natural carbon sinks. The oceans and plants (photosynthesis) take CO₂ and in exchange yield Oxygen. But those natural sinks are only able to handle a certain capacity of carbon at any given time.

And by these scientists' estimates, the planet's oceans are not keeping up as they once were. The process isn't a fast reaction... it occurs on the order of hundreds of thousands of years according to Harvard Magazine. In other words, it doesn't seem like something that could be quickly turned around.

And that's our problem and likely our fault. Nearly 75% of the planet is covered in water... yet the 25% (less than that inhabitable) with people and our machines is pumping out increasingly greater CO₂ emissions, methane and fluorocarbons .

WHAT'S WATER GOT TO DO WITH IT?
How does that translate into a warmer planet? Florida State University oceanographer Jeff Chanton says,

"the same heat trapping gases that are warming the Earth are also driving up the temperature of the ocean. About half of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean, keeping the Earth from getting too hot.

But rising greenhouse gas emissions, combined with the loss of trees — a key absorber of carbon dioxide —due to deforestation, places more of a burden on the ocean. Just as more carbon in the atmosphere means that we feel the heat, more carbon in the water means a warmer ocean."

While we sense the weather while we live on land, weather patterns are controlled in large part by ocean circulations. And ocean temperatures.

We know that the planet's climate has been warming slowly for the past century or so... and especially within a more recent time window.

We know that human civilization's output of CO₂, methane, and types of fluorocarbons has increased. For this reason, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) says human activity as the biggest contributor to global warming.

STILL EDITING THE EXPERT REPORTS
All this... while the Bush Administration encouraged edits to the CDC's health report on the effects of global warming. Dr. Julie Gerberding of the Center for Disease Control created a 14-page report on human health consequences based on IPCC data. That report was edited to 6 pages... leaving out all references of health concerns brought by global warming.

The censored pages included

how extreme weather events such as floods and hurricanes will cause deaths, large-scale population displacement and contamination of drinking water. Other concerns included how increases in temperatures encourage the formation of ground level ozone, the primary ingredient of smog which can cause permanent lung damage and aggravate chronic lung diseases, such as asthma.

And now, there's strong belief that the global warming train has left the station. (Unless you're Senator Inhofe (R-OK) who can't see the train at platform 9¾).

Let's hope we can still meet up with the train at the next platform.

There's more: "A planet with a worsening gas problem" >>

Will Sarko give a slap to Shrub’s CO2 face?

Or, in plainer English, could a European Union carbon excise tax on non-Kyoto countries push even Bush to actually address global warming?

Because that sort of excise tax on countries that have not ratified the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions is exactly what French President Nicolas Sarkozy has just proposed:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Thursday called for a national "carbon tax" on global-warming pollutants and a European levy on imports from countries outside the Kyoto Protocol.

It’s part of a larger tax package, and Sarkozy’s drive to realign France’s economy and public service sector.

Wrapping up a four-month forum on the environment that brought together the government, industry and the green lobby, Sarkozy said he would consider shifting part of France's tax burden from labour to pollutants, a key demand of environmentalists. …

“We need to profoundly revise all of our taxes... to tax pollution more, including fossil fuels, and to tax labour less.”

And, it’s drawing rave domestic reviews.

France's star environmentalist Nicolas Hulot, who pushed green issues to the top of the agenda of the last presidential campaign, said he was “happy and confident” following Sarkozy’s speech.

Arnaud Gossement, spokesman for France Nature Environment, an umbrella group of 3,000 associations, also reacted positively.

“For the first time, we have a president who does not pit economy, growth and ecology against each other... even though he was elected on a pro-growth platform,” he said.

I don’t know exactly what World Trade Organization regulations have to say about such a levy. But, so far, not a peep from Bush, so Sarkozy may just be on firm ground.

Arguably, this is a good reason for getting a Kyoto II started, that would include China and other developing countries, even if they’re not held to the same standards as the EU, US or Japan. It would finally, in a way, include environmental standards in international trade issues.

There's more: "Will Sarko give a slap to Shrub’s CO2 face?" >>

White House Censorship Of Global Warming Science Nothing New

The White House has come under fire for censoring congressional testimony on the public health challenges of global warming.

But it's not the first time the Bush administration has tried to censor the inconvenient truths of global warming.

In October 2004, NASA's top climate scientist revealed that a senior administration official told him in 2003 not to discuss dangerous consequences of rising temperatures.

The New York Times reported in January 2006 that the NASA scientist, James E. Hansen, said the Bush administration tried to stop him from speaking out after he called for "prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming."

The Bush White House's war on global warming science continues to this day.

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported the White House "severely edited congressional testimony given Tuesday by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the impact of climate change on health, removing specific scientific references to potential health risks, according to two sources familiar with the documents."

No one should be surprised that the Bush White House is lying about global warming and is furiously working to censor the science. After all, George W. Bush is in the pocket of the oil corporations and other Fortune 500 companies who put him in power (and which fiercely oppose any government action on global warming).

What's amazing, though, is despite the lies, spin and misinformation pumped out by Bush (and the rest of the NeoCon propaganda machine), the American people are STILL alarmed by global warming and want the government to step in and deal with the crisis.

For example, a survey taken last year by ABC News, Time magazine and Stanford University revealed that almost seven in 10 Americans say the government should do more to address global warming. And what do you want to bet that those remaining 30 percent are the same Kool-Aid drinkers who get all their news from Rush and Fox?

By Marc McDonald of BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com

There's more: "White House Censorship Of Global Warming Science Nothing New" >>

Global warming kills coal-fired electric plant — in a red state

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment turned down a permit Thursday for twin 700-mW coal-fired electric plants in southwest Kansas. It cited global warming concerns as the reason for the denial.

If a regulatory agency in a “red” state like Kansas will do this, there may be hope for a bottom-up addressing of global warming issues, even if W. fiddles while America swelters on the top-down side.

The department’s staff had recommended issuing the air quality permits, but Roderick L. Bremby, the secretary of the department, said in a statement, “I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing.”

Meanwhile, Sunflower Electric Power Corporation tried to spin the decision:

A spokesman, Stephen J. Miller, said the court decision merely permitted regulations on carbon dioxide but did not create them. “There are no carbon dioxide regulations in the federal rules or in Kansas,” Miller said.

That’s exactly why Bremby’s decision is such a big deal. He went beyond the letter of the law to exercise discretionary concern. The story notes that, according to the Sierra Club, this is the first time a power plant application has been rejected on global warming grounds and that various environmental groups intend to use this precedent in other states.

More below the fold at the link:

For more on the variety of opposition coal-fired electric power plants are drawing, including rock-ribbed red state opposition, see this story. When a Republican cattle rancher in Montana is concerned, you know that global warming denialists of the far right are playing out the tether

Big Coal and Big Electricity aren’t taking this lying down, though:

“It’s clear new coal-fired generation is running into roadblocks,” said Rick Sergel, president and chief executive of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. “I don’t believe we can allow coal-fired generation to become an endangered species. We simply must use all the resources we have.”

The story notes that red-state opposition is mainly in red states west of the Mississippi, where many GOPers already dislike Bush-Cheney over things like coal-bed methane, massive natural gas drilling on BLM land and other things that threaten hunting and fishing.

Red-staters in the South are the heartland of global warming denialists and apparently unconcerned about sweltering in ever-higher heat — and humidity, which global warming will also bring to already-humid areas.

And, even in the West, the hunting and shooting aspects of environmentalism still trump global warming concerns in many places:

“I think global warming is a hoax, and I hate to hitch my wagon to environmentalists,” C. J. Kantorowicz said recently in his living room after a hard day planting winter wheat. “I went to the meeting with the mind that I’d shoot holes in her story, her environmentalist’s view. But she and others convinced me they were right by being honest and answering our questions in detail about pollution and such.”

But, getting a rancher in Montana just to sit down long enough to listen to an environmentalist is a step forward.

And, the continued boom in wind power promises Western farmers and ranchers of the High Plains and Front Range some serious supplemental income — another reason they’re willing to stop and listen to environmentalists.

Perhaps some state regulators, not just environmental groups, will sit up and take notice of Kansas, too. Or, maybe, some state legislators and governors.

There's more: "Global warming kills coal-fired electric plant — in a red state" >>

The Dingell is in the details on carbon taxes

Several weeks after promising it, Michigan’s House Democratic war horse, John Dingell, has delivered an carbon-tax energy bill. And, as I expected at that time, there’s a lot about which to be concerned; there’s some halfway good stuff, too, but even that has the lingering aroma stench of pandering to it.

I have several points of analysis:

• I’m OK with a carbon tax. But, if you’re going to submit something so serious, and you intend for it to succeed (whether Dingell does so or not is an open question, at best), you’d better put plenty of negotiating padding in there. And, I don’t think $50 a ton does. I think you would need to start at $100 a ton (too much more than that would turn people off right away) to bargain down to $50 a ton.

• Exempting biofuels? Crazy, and scientifically illiterate. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, no matter its source. But, Michigan grows some amount of corn, and sugar beets, which some wonder whether they might substitute for cane sugar for ethanol. Michigan/Midwestern political pandering, at least to a fair degree, I think.

• A 50-cent a gallon gas tax is good, but, exempting diesel fuel? The Oil Drum argues that Dingell is pandering to the Teamsters. It’s possible, is what I’ll say, at the least. Dingell ranks 17th among Representatives from 1990-2006 in Teamsters political contributions, according to Open Secrets, receiving $71,000.

• Eliminating the mortgage writeoff above 3K square feet on homes? The size standard panders somewhat to anybody not moving to the upper edge of the middle class and beyond, but, as more and more cookie cutter McMansions beyond this size are built by cheap builders, I welcome this. Dingell does soften the blow by having homes over 3K in size lose the mortgage deduction on a sliding scale and not all at once.

• The “revenue-neutral” part? I’m OK with putting part of the money this raises toward health care issues, but think part of it should be used for budget reduction, too, rather than all of it being spent.

Bottom line? If Dingell’s bill is intended in addition to the 35mpg CAFÉ standard for cars (and trucks being finally included), I’ll give him a B-minus. It doesn’t get higher because we need to nail a first effort on carbon tax. In addition to junking the gas tax free ride for diesel and the carbon tax loophole for biofuels, I’d like to see a carbon cap-and-trade program as part of this legislation.

If this is intended to substitute for a CAFÉ increase, there’s enough here I won’t give Dingell an F. But, that’s about all I’ll say.

There's more: "The Dingell is in the details on carbon taxes" >>

Arctic Sea Ice: an ecosystem in collapse

It's September, and all you weather wonks and wonkettes know what that means...the summer melt is for all intents and purposes over, and it is time to visit the National Snow and Ice Data Center and assess the state of sea ice in the arctic. This years news is frightening. This summers melt was the most extensive of any year since 1978, when the data was gathered the first time.

Let's start by defining what sea ice is. Sea ice is any ice floating in the ocean that formed from sea water. (Icebergs are not sea ice - they are pieces of glacier that have broken free.) Sea ice forms and melts with the polar seasons. While both arctic and antarctic sea ice are important parts of the ecosystem and vital to birds and mammals that rely on them for habitat; arctic sea ice appears to have a greater impact on climate regulation via heat exchange, and is important in the regulation of the salinity of the ocean and the moisture content in the air. During the winter months, it insulates the relatively warm ocean water from the frigid arctic air. The amount of moisture in the air determines the amount of cloud cover and precipitation received.

The satellite data is now available for this years melt, and it reveals that the regional ice cover is the lowest it has ever been. Previously, the worst year for sea ice was 2002, when it was 4% lower than any point since 1978, and 14% lower than the mean for the years 1979-2000. (Serreze et al. 2003). Historically, the low-ice years have been followed by returns to near-normal conditions, but 2002 was different. It was followed by two more low-ice years that almost matched the melt record of 2002, then a new record low was set again in 2005. When the data was tabulated for 2005, it was determined that the summers-end sea ice was diminishing by approximately 8% per decade, and was projected to be gone entirely during the summer months by 2070. That date will be adjusted to a point much nearer when the final results of this years data are tabulated.

The graph above is an updated time series of daily ice for 2007, as compared to the previous record, set in 2005 and the 1979-2000 average. Since this graph was generated on September 3, an additional 180,000 square kilometers (69,000 square miles) of sea ice have melted, although the day-to-day loss has slowed considerably, and the absolute minimum has likely occurred, or will any day. The minimum cover has occurred as late in the year as September 25. On September 10, the ice cover stood at 4.24 million square kilometers (1.63 million square miles), falling yet further below the previous record absolute minimum of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) that occurred on September 20–21, 2005. The Northwest Passage became accessible a few days ago, and is still open.

Models of greenhouse warming have long shown an "arctic amplification" effect, and that climate change will be most pronounced over the Arctic Ocean. The loss of sea ice is accelerating, and the phenomenon is driving itself. Look at the photo of sea ice on the right. Water is dark, and ice is white. White ice reflects the heat of the sun back to space, dark water absorbs that light/energy and it is stored in the oceans in the form of elevated temperature. Expanses of dark water absorb massive amounts of the suns energy through the summer, and this heats the upper ocean. As air temperature drops in the winter, that energy is released back into the atmosphere, which increases air temperature, which slows the formation of sea ice...and so it goes.

The health of an ecosystem can be assessed by how well it's top predator fares. In the arctic, the top predator is the polar bear, and polar bears are not faring so well these days. Two years ago, researchers spotted polar bears swimming as far as 95 kilometers from shore, and the percentage of bears sighted in the water jumped from 4% to 20%. The carcasses of drowned polar bears have washed ashore and been recovered, and on post mortem examination, they show signs of starvation. Instances of cannibalism among the bear population have been reported as well. The species has been officially added to the endangered list, but it is entirely possible that the polar bear has passed the tipping point and will not survive in the wild. An ecosystem that loses it's top predator is an ecosystem in collapse. The collapse of the arctic ecosystem is something we should all be nervous about, because the effects will be far reaching, not just localized or isolated.

There's more: "Arctic Sea Ice: an ecosystem in collapse" >>