Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

Posts: 1367

Quote:

A different non-scientific point, endemic to any of Spencer's work, is that he doesn't fundamentally view himself as engaging in science and an effort to understand the universe; he says "I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government."

Wow. How damning is this quote from Spencer? Of course, it's been obvious to me that this is what's been going on all along. I gotta give props to Spencer for finally admitting it. If the rest of the denier community was honest about their motivations, then maybe we could finally have the discussion that we should have had more than a decade ago.

Unfortunately, it's probably way too late to do anything meaningful about climate change now. IMHO, the window of opportunity to act has closed, and billions will die as a result. It's a damn shame, but this is what happens when we let greed and ideology trump science.

Posts: 3424

Scorpion wrote:

Unfortunately, it's probably way too late to do anything meaningful about climate change now. IMHO, the window of opportunity to act has closed, and billions will die as a result.

That's the bad news.
The good news is that Al Gore and Heretic can finally take up new hobbies.

Posts: 2340

Spencer's paper is quickly refuted.

Quote:

Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, has released a scientific paper (Dessler 2011) that looks at the claims made by two of a small group of "skeptic" climate scientists who regular SkS readers will be familiar with: Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Both were co-authors on peer-reviewed papers released this year (Spencer & Braswell [2011] & Lindzen & Choi [2011]) which, once again, sought to overturn the orthodox view of climate. Dessler (2011) finds that the conclusions of these two papers are unsupported by observational data.

The Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi papers have an unusual take on global warming: rather than warming causing a change in cloud cover (i.e. acting as a feedback to either increase or reduce warming), both papers claim that it's the other way around - changes in cloud cover cause changes in the surface temperature (in the present case, warming).

Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi look at the relationship between changes in ocean heat, cloud cover (directly affecting the amount of heat lost to space), and global surface temperature over recent decades. The idea is, if the change in surface temperature over that period is affected by changes in cloud cover, but changes of the surface temperature associated with the ocean warming are small, then changes in cloud cover must be driving the present global warming.

Dessler: Putting reality back on its feet
Putting aside the problems with their energy budget equation, Dessler looks at the values Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi use for their calculations. Rather than examine the data for two of the terms in their equation (heating of the climate by the ocean & change in cloud cover allowing heat to escape to space), Lindzen and Spencer approximate them from other observations, and their results rely heavily on assumptions about the size of these values.

Rather than rely on assumptions, Dessler uses other observational data (such as surface temperature measurements and ARGO ocean temperature) to estimate and corroborate these values. Dessler finds that, in contrast to Spencer/Braswell and Lindzen/Choi, the change in cloud cover is far too small to explain the short-term changes in surface temperature, explaining only a few percent of surface temperature change. In fact, the heating of the climate system through ocean heat transport is approximately 20 times larger than the change in top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy flux due to cloud cover changes. Lindzen and Choi assumed the ratio was close to 2, while Spencer and Braswell assumed it was close to 0.5.

Dessler finds that the short-term changes in surface temperature are related to exchanges of heat to and from the ocean - which tallies well with what we know about El Niño and La Niña, and their atmospheric warming/cooling cycles.

Posts: 2340

I wrote:

Cue the sad trombone...

Quote:

Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.

The GOP hired known (but well credentialed) skeptic Richard Muller to study the statistical integrity of AGW. Much to their dismay, Muller played the part of scientist rather than ideologue and had to admit that his finding had thus far confirmed the work of NASA, NOAA, and every other organization on the planet.

Not like it mattered, though. House Republicans still have no interest in honesty or integrity; none of them were swayed by the evidence or testimony.

Well, the study's finished. Care to guess the results?

Quote:

New independent climate study confirms global warming is real

The study is called the Berkeley Earth Project (BEP), and what they found was stated simply and beautifully in their own two-page summary:

Quote:

Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1° C since the mid-1950s.

. . .

Now, we’ve known this for a while. Study after study has shown that the Earth is warming, that the past decade has been the hottest on record, and that the rise in temperature has been about a degree. So what’s the big deal here?

The big deal is that this was an independent team of researchers who conducted the study (including, interestingly, Saul Perlmutter, who just won the Nobel Prize for co-discovering the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, and knows a thing or two about data analysis), and whose funding was overwhelmingly donated by the private sector and not from any government. The study was initiated by Berkeley physicist Richard Muller, who was concerned that government researchers weren’t being as open as possible with their methods. He gathered together a team of scientists, and they used data from 39,000 temperature stations around the world, far more than the previous studies. They have put all their data and methodology online for anyone to investigate.

And if you’re wondering who these private groups were, they’re listed on the BEP website. The largest single donor? Why, it’s the Koch brothers, über-conservatives who have pumped millions of dollars into climate change denial. I find that… interesting.

Anyone claiming that climate scientists are alarmists only trying to protect their grant money will have to think about that one for a while.

. . .

In the report summary, BEP Executive Director Elizabeth Muller says she hopes the results "will help cool the debate over global warming by addressing many of the valid concerns of the skeptics in a clear and rigorous way."

I strongly suspect they won’t. I do like her use of the word "valid"; so many of the attacks we’ve seen have not been so. There have been legitimate doubts raised scientifically, of course, about various factors that go into the results we’ve seen over the years. It looks like BEP now has those covered.

Still, her thoughts are mirrored by Bob Ward, the policy and communications director for the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, who said:

Quote:

So-called ‘sceptics’ should now drop their thoroughly discredited claims that the increase in global average temperature could be attributed to the impact of growing cities. [...] It is now time for an apology from all those, including US presidential hopeful Rick Perry, who have made false claims that the evidence for global warming has been faked by climate scientists.

This, of course, will never happen.

Proving, once again, nearly every GOP 2012 Presidential contender is still either a mentally deficient moron or a liar. Or both.

Posts: 2340

Quote:

Crunch time for carbon sceptics

Australia finally has the price on carbon first proposed by John Howard in 2007. Although passage of the Clean Energy Act by the Senate was little more than a formality, it has already changed the terms of debate.

Every day that passes from now on will put the advocates of denial, delusion and delay in a less and less tenable position. While denouncing mainstream science as ‘alarmist’, this group, has long predicted that a carbon price will bring about an economic disaster. As recently as this July, NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell predicted a ‘carbon catastrophe’, a prediction echoed by rightwing think tanks and commentators.

But now that the carbon price is in place, these predictions will be put to the test. With less than eight months to go before the policy is implemented, anyone who seriously believed these claims should be predicting an immediate collapse in investment, and acting accordingly. But among the postmodernists who pass for conservative thinkers in Australia today, any such notion of intellectual consistency is obsolete and old-fashioned.

Already, those who once predicted economic disaster are walking those predictions back. Tony Abbott’s website, for example, states that ‘On the Government’s own figures, three million Australian households will be worse off under the carbon tax.’ Since Abbott doesn’t challenge those figures, he presumably accepts the corollary that the other 5 million households will be better off. Abbott has to fall back on the rather desperate claim that ‘while the tax will increase in the future, the compensation won’t’, a claim that does not suggest much confidence in his own electoral prospects.

Meanwhile, the scientific evidence continues to mount up. A striking recent example was the publication of a report by a team led by one of the few serious scientists sceptical of the mainstream view, Richard Muller. With strong support from other self-described ‘sceptics’, Muller and his team undertook a reanalysis of climate data using 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations. Somewhat to his surprise, his results were an almost perfect match for those already reported by climate scientists.

The reaction of the ‘sceptics’ was revealing. Without exception, they rushed to denounce Muller. Clearly the term ‘sceptic’ is inappropriate here. These are ‘true disbelievers’, who will never be convinced by evidence of any kind.

Posts: 2340

And since it's so rare, here's some actual honesty from a Republican:

Quote:

How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change

For those of you who aren’t familiar with me, I am a Republican and a geochemist who, until a few years ago, was quite skeptical about the idea that humans are causing significant climate change.

In the presentation, I briefly talked about how I had made the transition from being a climate change “skeptic” to being an outspoken advocate of mainstream climate science. I then discussed how it is that people like me can so effectively avoid the truth about climate change.

Please pass this video along! I am actually writing a book with the same title, but there’s no way I can get it published before the Republican primaries. Hopefully this kind of thing can influence a few people toward the center on this issue.

Posts: 874

Thought you might get a laugh at this one Heretic.

Posts: 2340

This is why every global warming "skeptic" who said "follow the money" is a dishonest hack. Now we've got a Climategate-esque insiders view on a "skeptic" think tank. We'll see if any of these skeptics have an ounce of integrity and change their minds in light of this money trail.

Via Bad Astronomy at Discover Magazine:

Quote:

A look behind the curtain of the Heartland Institute’s climate change spin

The Heartland Institute — a self-described "think tank" that actually serves in part as a way for climate change denialism to get funded — has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands. Someone going by the handle "Heartland Insider" has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland, revealing the Institute’s strategies, funds, and much more.

These documents are available over at DeSmogBlog. Several people are going over them, and so far they appear legit. You can read some relevant discussions at DeSmogBlog, Deep Climate, Planet 3, Greg Laden, ClimateCrocks, Shawn Otto, and Think Progress. John Mashey at DeSmogBlog has more info that also corroborates the leaked documents, and to call it blistering is to severely underestimate it.

One thing I want to point out right away which is very illuminating, if highly disturbing, about what Heartland allegedly wants to do: they are considering developing a curriculum for teachers to use in the classroom to sow confusion about climate change. I know, it sounds like I’m making that up, but I’m not. In this document they say:

Quote:

[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

That seems clear enough, doesn’t it? From that, it sure sounds like they want to dissuade teachers from teaching science. I imagine there will be a lot of spin about how this quote is out of context, or a typo, or something alone those lines. Perhaps. But I remember all the hammering real scientists took when they used jargon in their emails to each other, jargon which was gleefully misinterpreted to make it seem as if these scientists were faking data. Interesting how this is pointing right back at them. Just as I said it does.

Via Greg Laden:

Quote:

Here's the details:

The 2012 fundraising plan ((1-15-2012) 2012 Fundraising Plan.pdf) claims that Heartland will raise $7.7 million in 2012, up by 70% from 2011. One of the most interesting revelations of this document is an "anonymous donor" who gave just under one million in 2011 and who plans to give 1.25 million for 2012.

The budget ((1-15-2012) 2012 Heartland Budget (2).pdf) gives an idea of the institute's activities (lots of communications and lobbying). Most interesting are the funds that will be spent on fighting science in schools and other venues. $75,000 is set aside for:

K-12 Climate Education Project
Payments to David Wojick for K-12 Global Warming Lesson Plan modules plus a Website featuring the same. Estimate quarterly payments of $25,000 in June, September, and December.

We know this to be an effort to fight the teaching of good climate science in schools, much like efforts we've seen before to force creationism into science classes in order to damage science teaching. It is probably in the interest of those who donate to Heartland to have a poorly informed populace when it comes to science.

Emphasis mine.

Quote:

How is Joe Bast like Joe Camel?

Well, let’s see – they both promote the sale of addictive poisons to children, they both are funded by the tobacco industry, and they both are leading proponents of the anti-science movement that threatens to cripple our education system and our economy.

Joe Bast is the President and CEO of the Heartland Institute, a right wing “think” tank in Chicago that has been the prime mover behind major disinformation initiatives on both global climate and tobacco dangers.

Mr. Bast is well known for insisting that the science of climate change is “science is very sketchy, very uncertain..”, as well as famously asserting that “No victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can “prove” his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.”

Not surprisingly, the Heartland has been the recipient of major funding from both tobacco and fossil fuel interests over the years.

I think the fact that no "skeptic" is defending the tobacco industry demonstrates clearly that they recognize their own arguments against global warming as the complete and utter bullshit it is.

Via Planet3.0

Quote:

Chris Mooney (in email, quoted with permission) spots perhaps the most surprising and most disturbing aspect of the documents in what is NOT there.

Quote:

most of our ideological opponents think they’re actually right about the science, which means they would not want to prevent science from being taught, but rather prevent what they view as biased environmentalist science being taught. That there is no indication of this here is very, very striking.

And of course there's links on top of links on top of links in the pages above. Check out the original articles if you want more.

Bottom line - they're frauds. All of 'em. This "skepticism" has been nothing but industry-funded lies for decades now (which isn't really news to anyone). And Republicans are too stupid to notice or too stupid to care.

Posts: 2340

I wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

It's interesting what one can learn by actually reading the published work rather than depending on the interpretation of someone else.

I've busted up more than a few denier talking points that way. A study gets published (by a non-denier), conservative media picks it up, declares global warming over. Then I go find the part in the study that states the exact opposite of their claim, usually combined with a statement issued by the author of the study in direct response to all the media attention, "Stop misrepresenting my study; you don't know what you're talking about."

Add this one to the list:

Economist smacks down skeptics for misreading his research

Quote:

The back story: Nordhaus has done working analysis of the economic impacts of implementing climate policies. In that awful Wall Street Journal op-ed we wrote about in January, a group of skeptics cited that work as proof that the country should do exactly nothing in the next 50 years to fight climate change. In his new article, Nordhaus approaches this and other claims with, as he says, “a cool head and a warm heart.” But eventually he just has to tell them “you know nothing of my work.”

Read and learn from all his responses to skeptics’ arguments, but for the juicy bits, skip to item six. Here is what Nordhaus has to say about skeptics’ interpretation of his work.

I'll post item six in full:

Quote:

A final point concerns economic analysis. The sixteen scientists argue, citing my research, that economics does not support policies to slow climate change in the next half-century:

Quote:

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

On this point, I do not need to reconstruct how climate scientists made their projections, or review the persecution of Soviet geneticists. I did the research and wrote the book on which they base their statement. The skeptics’ summary is based on poor analysis and on an incorrect reading of the results.

The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs).

This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs.

This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10

My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.

One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed. Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification. Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policy—and one starting sooner rather than later—to slow climate change.

The group of sixteen scientists argues that we should avoid alarm about climate change. I am equally concerned by those who allege that we will incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science.

Posts: 2340

CO2 is life to plants, and that would be fantastic if it were the only single variable to change as a result of AGW. It isn't, and the CEI knew it, despite trying to convince the American public otherwise.

Quote:

Models underestimate future temperature variability; food security at risk

While warmer temperatures already have implications for food production in the tropics, the new findings suggest the increase in the volatility of summertime temperatures will have serious effects in grain-growing regions of Europe and North and South America, Battisti said.

“If there’s greater variability, the odds of the temperature being so high that you can’t grow a crop are greater,” he said.

“In terms of regional and global food security, it’s not good news.”

. . .

Earlier research has shown that by the end of this century, the increase in average growing season temperature, if other factors remain the same, will likely reduce yields of rice, corn and soybean 30 to 40 percent. Already rice yields in the tropics are being affected by higher temperatures, affecting nations such as Indonesia, which frequently imports rice to stabilize prices, Battisti said.

In addition, the scientists say global warming will have greater impacts than previously thought on the El Niño Southern Oscillation, a tropical phenomenon that has global impact on climate and food production. Their conclusions are based on geological and other proxy records of climate and El Niño from the last 10,000 years, plus recent analyses of long-term climate changes because of global warming.

But, you know... it's not like we have an exponentially increasing population to feed or anything...

Posts: 7254

Perfect talking point for the Alabama/Mississippi Crowd....

Quote:

tp://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40052_Quote_of_the_Day-_Rick_Santorums_Latest_Anti-[quote]Science_Howler?]Quote of the Day: Rick Santorum’s Latest Anti-Science Howler[/url]
Again, religious fanatic, creationist, and climate change denier Rick Santorum provides the best measure of the dangerously irresponsible disconnect between the American right wing and reality.

Quote:

“The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is,” said Rick Santorum.

Santorum is sneering at a physical phenomenon that has been uncontroversial, established science for more than 100 years: that CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere acts as a heat trap, preventing the Sun’s heat from being radiated back out into space. This isn’t rocket surgery, it’s the simplest kind of physics.

Posts: 2340

The old "we call it life" card. Glad to see our might-be-future President has honestly thought through the issues. LGF continues:

Quote:

And Rick Santorum is far from the only Republican spouting this kind of determined ignorance; the GOP has become the anti-factual party, existing in a weird echo chamber environment in which falsehoods are never abandoned, ridiculous conspiracy theories are universally believed, reality is not allowed to impinge, and being anti-scientific is considered a noble quality, to be applauded and cheered.

Sad, really. Hell, they hate science so much, few if any backed Scorpion and I in our exhaustive attempt to counter Maxx's 9/11 conspiracies. But I suppose that's just because the arguments were too familiar - "It's a government conspiracy"; "They're in it for the gold"; "There is no consensus"; "Alex Jones is awesome sauce!"; ".001% scientists agree the other 99.999% are wrong".

Posts: 2123

Germany takes the lead in committing to clean, renewable power. This is how a government that is determined to lead the way towards a sustainable future creates public policy. Other countries in Europe are making similar large scale bets on the future of renewable power. It's time the US quit listening to the whining from the climate change deniers and started implementing progressive public policy like this. The market will create solutions to lessen the impact of AGW as long as corporations are convinced that our government will support their investments.
Not since the allies leveled Germany in World War II has Europe’s biggest economy undertaken a reconstruction of its energy market on this scale.Chancellor Angela Merkel is planning to build offshore wind farms that will cover an area six times the size of New York City and erect power lines that could stretch from London to Baghdad. The program will cost 200 billion euros ($263 billion), about 8 percent of the country’s gross domestic product in 2011, according to the DIW economic institute in Berlin.

Posts: 2340

It's a complete takedown of every Republican talking point by a Republican. Expect Republicans to take no notice at all and continue to shill for the fossil fuel industry.

Quote:

A Message from a Republican Meteorologist on Climate Change

I’m going to tell you something that my Republican friends are loath to admit out loud: climate change is real. I am a moderate Republican, fiscally conservative; a fan of small government, accountability, self-empowerment, and sound science. I am not a climate scientist. I’m a meteorologist, and the weather maps I’m staring at are making me uncomfortable. No, you’re not imagining it: we’ve clicked into a new and almost foreign weather pattern. To complicate matters, I’m in a small, frustrated and endangered minority: a Republican deeply concerned about the environmental sacrifices some are asking us to make to keep our economy powered-up, long-term. It’s ironic. The root of the word conservative is “conserve.” A staunch Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, set aside vast swaths of America for our National Parks System, the envy of the world. Another Republican, Richard Nixon, launched the EPA. Now some in my party believe the EPA and all those silly “global warming alarmists” are going to get in the way of drilling and mining our way to prosperity. Well, we have good reason to be alarmed.

. . .

Acknowledging Climate Science Doesn’t Make You A Liberal

My climate epiphany wasn’t overnight, and it had nothing to do with Al Gore. In the mid-90s I noticed gradual changes in the weather patterns floating over Minnesota. Curious, I began investigating climate science, and, over time, began to see the thumbprint of climate change, along with 97% of published, peer-reviewed PhD’s, who link a 40% spike in greenhouse gases with a warmer, stormier atmosphere.

Bill O’Reilly, whom I respect, talks of a “no-spin zone.” Yet today there’s a very concerted, well-funded effort to spin climate science. Some companies, institutes and think tanks are cherry-picking data, planting dubious seeds of doubt, arming professional deniers, scientists-for-hire and skeptical bloggers with the ammunition necessary to keep climate confusion alive. It’s the “you can’t prove smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer!” argument, times 100, with many of the same players. Amazing.

Schopenhauer said “All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident.” We are now well into Stage 2. It’s getting bloody out there. Climate scientists are receiving death threats and many Americans don’t know what to believe. Some turn to talk radio or denial-blogs for their climate information. No wonder they’re confused.

. . .

“Actions Have Consequences.”

Trust your gut - and real experts. We should listen to peer-reviewed climate scientists, who are very competitive by nature. This is not about “insuring more fat government research grants.” I have yet to find a climate scientist in the “1 Percent”, driving a midlife-crisis-red Ferrari into the lab. I truly hope these scientists turn out to be wrong, but I see no sound, scientific evidence to support that position today. What I keep coming back to is this: all those dire (alarmist!) warnings from climate scientists 30 years ago? They’re coming true, one after another – and faster than supercomputer models predicted. Data shows 37 years/row of above-average temperatures, worldwide. My state has warmed by at least 3 degrees F. Climate change is either “The Mother of All Coincidences” - or the trends are real.

My father, a devout Republican, who escaped a communist regime in East Germany, always taught me to never take my freedom for granted, and “actions have consequences.” Carbon that took billions of years to form has been released in a geological blink of an eye. Human emissions have grown significantly over the past 200 years, and now exceed 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide, annually. To pretend this isn’t having any effect on the 12-mile thin atmosphere overhead is to throw all logic and common sense out the window. It is to believe in scientific superstitions and political fairy tales, about a world where actions have no consequences - where colorless, odorless gases, the effluence of success and growth, can be waved away with a nod and a smirk. No harm, no foul. Keep drilling.

. . .

Biblical Scripture: “We Are Here to Manage God’s Property”

I’m a Christian, and I can’t understand how people who profess to love and follow God roll their eyes when the subject of climate change comes up. Actions have consequences. Were we really put here to plunder the Earth, no questions asked? Isn’t that the definition of greed? In the Bible, Luke 16:2 says, “Man has been appointed as a steward for the management of God’s property, and ultimately he will give account for his stewardship.” Future generations will hold us responsible for today’s decisions.

I understand this: capitalism requires growth. Growth requires energy. Anything that gets in the way of insuring an uninterrupted flow of (carbon-based) energy must be inherently evil. My fellow Republicans have an allergic reaction to regulation, but do we really want to go back to the 60s, a time of choking smog and combustible rivers?

. . .

The climate is warming. The weather is morphing. It’s not your grandfather’s weather anymore. The trends are undeniable. If you don’t want to believe thousands of climate scientists – at least believe your own eyes: winters are warmer & shorter, summers more humid, more extreme weather events, with a 1-in-500 year flood every 2-3 years. For evidence of climate change don’t look at your back yard thermometer. That’s weather. Take another, longer look at your yard. Look at the new flowers, trees, birds, insects and pests showing up outside your kitchen window that weren’t there a generation ago.

This is a moral issue. Because the countries least responsible will bear the brunt of rising seas, spreading drought and climate refugees. Because someday your grandkids will ask what did you know…when…and what did you do to help? We’ve been binging on carbon for 200 years, and now the inevitable hangover is setting in. Curing our addiction to carbon won’t happen overnight. But creative capitalism can deal with climate change. I’m no fan of big government or over-regulation. Set the bar high. Then stand back and let the markets work. Let Americans do what they do best: innovate.

It's a great takedown of all the useless talking points, none of which should be new to anyone who's read my posts, but it might be useful to the last-but-still-so-many Republican holdouts.

But notice the disconnect, the one still inherent to our very system: "capitalism requires growth." Fact, and an acknowledged physical impossibility, yet no warnings to be found. We're steering ourselves around the obstacles on the road, some big, some small, but ultimately ignoring the fact that the bridge is out. All we're doing is ensuring we get back on the road and to disaster faster.

Posts: 2340

Despite the pontification from Republicans on climate change, at least they've been completely ineffective (so far) in preventing the military from acknowledging and preparing for the threat. As Paul Douglas noted in the above article:

Quote:

My youngest son is graduating from the Naval Academy in May, then heading to Pensacola. He’ll be flying choppers or jets; F-18s that can already run on biofuels. The Navy is serious about renewables and alternative fuels. Because it’s the best way forward - protecting our troops, securing supply lines, creating economies of scale that will make biofuels more competitive, leaving the Navy less vulnerable to price shocks in the oil markets.

Military intelligence has been publishing reports on global warming for years, considering it a bigger threat than terrorism since it will lead to more terrorism. Here's the latest example:

Quote:

U.S. Intelligence Report Warns of Global Water Tensions

The American intelligence community warned in a report released Thursday that problems with water could destabilize countries in North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia over the next decade.

Increasing demand and competition caused by the world’s rising population and scarcities created by climate change and poor management threaten to disrupt economies and increase regional tensions, the report concludes.

Prepared at the request of the State Department, the report is based on a classified National Intelligence Estimate completed last October that reflected an increasing focus on environmental and other factors that threaten security. An estimate reflects the consensus judgment of all intelligence agencies.

While the report concluded that wars over water are unlikely in the coming decade, it said that countries could use water for political and economic leverage over neighbors and that major facilities like dams and desalination plants could become targets of terrorist attacks. Coupled with poverty and other social factors, problems with water could even contribute to the political failure of weaker nations.

But it's not happening and we don't need to prepare, according to all our potential Republican Presidents. That won't put us at risk at all...

Posts: 2340

I was wrong. Republicans are trying to fuck with the military's ability to prepare for a world with global warming:

Quote:

U.S. Military Forges Ahead with Plans to Combat Climate Change

Climate policy may be a minefield for politicians but the Pentagon sees liabilities from global warming and is both reducing the armed forces greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate impacts

The U.S. military's elite forces have always pushed the envelope. And this summer will be no exception, as the Navy deploys SEALs with $2 million of new gear on missions to save hostages, combat pirates, and counter terrorism around the world. What sort of next-generation weaponry, armor, or transportation will the funds provide?

None.

The cash will pay for solar technology, enabling the SEALs to power up equipment and purify water while on the move, and even refrigerate medical supplies and food.

"It's really the first step in the Navy's effort to make the SEALs net-zero energy and net-zero water (use) down the road," said Thomas Hicks, the Navy's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy.

Making the SEALs into a leaner, greener tactical force is one of many such steps being taken by all branches as the U.S. military reduces its environmental footprint. The Army is targeting net-zero energy use at several bases, and the Navy and Air Force are experimenting with running jets on biofuels that use wood waste and algae and less petroleum. In Afghanistan, patrols now carry eco-friendly solar blankets and LED lamps.

Connecting the military's fossil-fuel and overall energy use with risks to our national security hasn't been easy in this political environment, especially with the presidential election looming. Congressional Republicans have repeatedly questioned and criticized the Armed Forces' new-energy strategies, portraying initiatives as political favors to clean-energy businesses.

But current and retired military leaders insist the policies are essential. The efforts protect soldiers and help them carry out missions. They also help curb climate change and its potential to intensify military conflicts.

"There is not a shred of political correctness in what the military is doing with energy efficiency or renewable energy," said Dennis McGinn, a retired Navy vice admiral who now serves as president of the D.C.-based American Council on Renewable Energy and as vice chair of the military advisory board for CNA, a 70-year-old think tank that began as a Naval antisubmarine research group during World War II. "From lance corporal to general, they are on board. They live with the problems from the over-reliance on fossil fuels."

Posts: 2340

And a follow up from Paul Douglas:

Quote:

Republican Meteorologist says 'keep track of who the deniers are today'

My recent Op-Ed gave me a chance to summarize how I feel about the politicization of climate science in recent years - how it's become a bizarre litmus test for conservatism.

As I describe in the piece, my "belief" in climate science had nothing to do with Al Gore, and everything to do with what I was seeing with my own two eyes: on the weather maps, and out my window.

I'm not running a popularity contest. Q Ratings were important when I was in local broadcasting, but no more. This issue is too important, and I'm hoping I can encourage other moderate voices out there to step out from the shadows and speak up about your concerns. Contact your politicians. Assume nothing. D.C. is hopelessly deadlocked on climate science and (clean, carbon-free) energy policy.

I have no idea what it's going to take to move things along and start a rational national dialogue (without shouting at each other and the name-calling...I swear we're still in 7th grade, with slightly better wardrobes), but the status quo is not good for our country.

If this keeps up we'll be buying all our wind farms, solar panels and hybrids from China and other countries that (amazingly!) aren't still "debating the science."

Are we really going to drill and mine our way to prosperity - indefinitely? I have nothing against drilling and tapping the resources we have, so long as it’s not the only way forward.

The trolls can rant and rave all they want - I don't care. Do me a favor and keep track of who the (professional/persistent) deniers are today. Let's come back in a few years and see what they have to say - what excuses they have for ignoring the science and putting our kids at risk. That should be interesting.

I'm no meteorological martyr or Paul Revere - but I've seen enough evidence to make a call on this one. It's either the greatest scientific hoax ever perpetrated on the people of Earth or the climate scientists are correct. Call me crazy but I think it's possible to lean to the right, and still care about the environment and sound science. If that makes me a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) then I wear the badge proudly. The forecast calls for more rinos.

Posts: 2340

Well, the results are in, and the "CO2 is plant food! Global warming will be TEH AWESOME for plants!" is a bust:

Quote:

Climate Change Boosts Then Quickly Stunts Plants, Decade-long Study Shows

Global warming may initially make the grass greener, but not for long, according to new research results.

The findings, published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, show that plants may thrive in the early stages of a warming environment but then begin to deteriorate quickly.

"We were really surprised by the pattern, where the initial boost in growth just went away," said scientist Zhuoting Wu of Northern Arizona University (NAU), a lead author of the study. "As ecosystems adjusted, the responses changed."

Ecologists subjected four grassland ecosystems to simulated climate change during a decade-long study.

Plants grew more the first year in the global warming treatment, but this effect progressively diminished over the next nine years and finally disappeared.

The research shows the long-term effects of global warming on plant growth, on the plant species that make up a community, and on changes in how plants use or retain essential resources like nitrogen.

Quote:

American Corn Growers Leader Speaks Out on Climate Change Report

Bolin, who farms near Manlius, Illinois, and who served as president of American Corn Growers Association from 2004 - 2012, said he felt there was no doubt that the weather has become more extreme, with high rainfall and severe droughts more prevalent today. He expressed concern for the ability of farmers to deal with and adapt to the changing environment. Bolin urges public policy to further develop alternative renewable energy resources, along with efforts to educate and inform agricultural producers to prepare for and adapt to the changing environment, to ensure adequate food and energy production.

“There’s simply no substitute for good soil and a stable climate for growing crops,” Bolin said. “That puts farmers at the front lines of global warming — it’s a grave threat to rural livelihoods and quality of life. That’s why I support EPA policies to cut global warming pollution from automobiles and power plants.”

Stability is necessary, otherwise this happens:

Quote:

Welch’s: 95 percent of grapes in Southwest Michigan destroyed

For Welch’s grape growers, it was the most devastating frost in Michigan’s history. That’s according to the National Grape Cooperation, better known as Welch’s Foods.
Cold temperatures wiped out 95 percent of all the juice grapes in Berrien, Cass and Van Buren County.
“You know it’s a complete wipeout,” said John Jasper, a surveyor for Welch’s Foods. Jasper said more than 10,000 acres of juice grapes were destroyed Thursday morning across Southwest Michigan.
Jasper had a difficult job Friday. He and two other Welch’s surveyors tried to figure out how many grapes the company could expect this year at harvest. “I went through hundreds of acres before I found a spot that had a live bud,” he said.
“I’ve probably been to 100 farms in the last two days,” said Jasper. “The majority (are destroyed) 95 percent.”
According to the National Grape Cooperation, Berrien, Cass and Van Buren farmers collected $24 million in 2011. Jasper said in 2012 they would be lucky to net $2 million.

But remember, it's not happening, according to our future Republican President. We can just stick our heads in the sand for another few decades and everything will be fine...

Posts: 2340

Quote:

Heartland Institute compares belief in global warming to mass murder

US thinktank launches poster campaign comparing Unabomber and Osama Bin Laden to those concerned about global warming

It really is hard to know where to begin with this one. But let's start with: "What on earth were they thinking?"

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based rightwing thinktank notorious for promoting climate scepticism, has launched quite possibly one of the most ill-judged poster campaigns in the history of ill-judged poster campaigns.

. . .

It tries to morally justify its posters - the first of which appeared over the Eisenhower Expressway yesterday - by saying that, due to ""Climategate" and the recent incident in which a US scientist called Peter Gleick admitted to obtaining and releasing internal documents (one of which Heartland claims was faked) detailing Heartland's funding and policy strategies, that "the leaders of the global warming movement are willing to break the law and the rules of ethics to shut down scientific debate and implement their left-wing agendas".

Yup. But only NASA and NOAA are the alarmists. Gotcha.

Posts: 2340

Panetta: Environment Emerges as National Security Concern

Quote:

Climate and environmental change are emerging as national security threats that weigh heavily in the Pentagon’s new strategy, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told an environmental group last night.

“The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security,” Panetta said here at a reception hosted by the Environmental Defense Fund to honor the Defense Department in advancing clean energy initiatives. “Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief,” Panetta said.

. . .

The secretary also said he has great concern about energy-related threats to homeland security that are not driven by climate change.

“I have a deep interest in working to try to ensure from a security perspective that we take measures that will help facilitate and maintain power in the event of an interruption of the commercial grid that could be caused, for example, by a cyber attack which is a reality that we have to confront,” he said.

Budget considerations compound the issue, the secretary said. The Defense Department spent about $15 billion on fuel for military operations last year. In Afghanistan alone, the Pentagon uses more than 50 million gallons of fuel each month on average. Combined with rising gas prices, this creates new budget issues for the department, Panetta said.

“We now face a budget shortfall exceeding $3 billion because of higher-than-expected fuel costs this year,” he told the audience.

A national security concern now just as it was under the Bush administration. But, you know... they're just in it for the gold like everyone else. How else was the Pentagon supposed to get funding from a Republican administration that denied the existence of global warming?

Laughing

Fucking morons.