Sea Ice Decline – Winter Weather Wild Card
February 29, 2012
We’re getting dumped with a combination of rain, snow, ice and sleet today in the upper midwest. Not entirely unusually for leap-day weather – but just about anyone will tell you that this has been an unusual winter in the US, and around the world. New research strengthens the case that changes in arctic ice may make wild winters, with extremes of warmth AND cold – more common in Eurasia and North America.
Georgia Tech:
A new study led by the Georgia Institute of Technology provides further evidence of a relationship between melting ice in the Arctic regions and widespread cold outbreaks in the Northern Hemisphere. The study’s findings could be used to improve seasonal forecasting of snow and temperature anomalies across northern continents.
Since the level of Arctic sea ice set a new record low in 2007, significantly above-normal winter snow cover has been seen in large parts of the northern United States, northwestern and central Europe, and northern and central China. During the winters of 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, the Northern Hemisphere measured its second and third largest snow cover levels on record.
“Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation,” said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. “The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”
The study was published on Feb. 27, 2012 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The research was supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation.
Carbon Brief:
You’ve probably heard a lot in recent years about how Arctic sea ice is melting. So what’s the big deal? After all, the Arctic’s a fair distance away and you’re not a polar bear.
Scientists worry that changes in the Arctic will have knock-on effects in other parts of the world, including closer to home. This includes on our winter weather, with three separate scientific studies published this year linking the loss of Arctic sea to cold and snowy winters here in Europe.
The most recent of these studies, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, comes from a team of researchers (incidentally including well-known blogging scientist Judith Curry) from Georgia Tech University, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Columbia University.
The team used observational data along with climate models to examine whether there was a link between Arctic sea ice loss and the unusually large snowfall in Northern Hemisphere winters over recent years.
The research showed that when Arctic sea ice melt is unusually high in summer, the Arctic Ocean, Greenland, and northeastern Canada have a warmer winter, while northern North America, Europe, Siberia, and eastern Asia cool down and experience above average snowfall.
The graphic below is adapted from the University of Bremen sea ice images published on the indispensable Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Read the rest of this entry »
Filed in News and Announcements
Laffer Throws a New Curve – Bob Inglis Explains
February 27, 2012
At last month’s Town Hall meeting on Climate at the University of Michigan, ( a goldmine of thought and inspiration) – I had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing conservative republican and former congressman Bob Inglis. Inglis is one of a quiet but growing group of conservatives frustrated with the anti-science stonewalling of their party on the issue of climate change, and is working for solutions that he believes will not only be palatable to conservatives, but effective as well.
Vanderbilt News:
As a longtime champion of conservative causes, renowned economist Arthur B. Laffer says he’s officially neutral in the debate over climate change. But he sees a fundamentally backward system in the United States that imposes taxes on things people want more of: income and jobs. At the same time, the U.S. allows something we want less of — carbon dioxide pollution — to be emitted without penalty.
Laffer says that situation should be reversed. Instead of tax increases that are “veiled as ‘cap and trade’ schemes,” Congress should offset a simple carbon tax with a reduction in income or payroll taxes.
Laffer and (now former) Rep. Bob Inglis wrote about the plan in the New York Times, as long ago as 2008.
We need to impose a tax on the thing we want less of (carbon dioxide) and reduce taxes on the things we want more of (income and jobs). A carbon tax would attach the national security and environmental costs to carbon-based fuels like oil, causing the market to recognize the price of these negative externalities.
Nuclear power plants would then compete with coal-fired plants. Wind and solar power would have a shot against natural gas. Trains would compete with trucks. We would clean the air, create wealth and jobs through a new technology boom and drastically improve our national security.
The United States can’t solve climate change alone. The Kyoto climate treaty was rightly rejected by the Senate because China and India weren’t subject to its provisions. If China and India join the United States in attaching a price to carbon, their goods should come into this country without a carbon adjustment. But if they do not, every item they place on our shelves should be subject to the same carbon tax that we would place on our domestically produced goods, again offset by a revenue-neutral tax cut.
If World Trade Organization rules entitle members to an unwarranted exemption from such a carbon tax, then we should change them. Outliers should not be allowed to frustrate the decision-making of the countries that are trying to prevent the security and environmental train wrecks of this century.
The market-driven innovation that brought us the Internet and the personal computer could quickly bring us new, cleaner fuels. A carbon tax that was fully offset (with payroll or income taxes cut by a dollar amount equal to the revenues generated by the new tax) would be as bold as the threat that we face.
Conservatives do not have to agree that humans are causing climate change to recognize a sensible energy solution. All we need to assume is that burning less fossil fuels would be a good thing. Based on the current scientific consensus and the potential environmental benefits, it’s prudent to do what we can to reduce global carbon emissions. When you add the national security concerns, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels becomes a no-brainer.
Could this be the foundation for an emerging compromise on climate, carbon and taxes?
Read the rest of this entry »
Filed in News and Announcements
Dr. Suess is Not Here to Puke, So I Will
February 25, 2012
It’s not the Lorax’s fault. He’s just the latest in the series of animated films inspired by Dr. Suess children’s books that have, so far, all made me want to projectile power chuck. Maybe this one’s different – but the record is not promising.
For those that loved the books, and worshipped the writer/illustrator as a genius, Hollywood’s treatment has been worse than shabby – its practically a sacrilege.
It’s all the more ironic that as this one gets the full bullshit greenwashing treatment from Mazda, above, the right wing is simultaneously bloviating about how it supposedly inculcates evil environmental values in young’ns.
Read the rest of this entry »
Filed in News and Announcements
Who Knew? There’s a Crock of the Week Facebook Fan Page….
February 25, 2012
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Climate-Denial-Crock-of-the-Week/270080745702?sk=wall
I’m not a huge power Facebook user, but I do announce every new posting at my own FB page. Thanks to the viewers who put together and have been administering this page.
Filed in News and Announcements
The Anti Science Lobby and “a new Dark Era”.
February 22, 2012
Guardian:
Most scientists, on achieving high office, keep their public remarks to the bland and reassuring. Last week Nina Fedoroff, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), broke ranks in a spectacular manner.
She confessed that she was now “scared to death” by the anti-science movement that was spreading, uncontrolled, across the US and the rest of the western world.
“We are sliding back into a dark era,” she said. “And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms.”
Inside Climate News:
A number of prominent U.S. climate scientists who identify themselves as Republican say their attempts in recent years to educate the GOP leadership on the scientific evidence of man-made climate change have been futile. Now, many have given up trying and the few who continue notice very little change after speaking with politicians and their aides.
….past support of policies to regulate carbon dioxide, a global warming gas, is being used to question the fitness of candidates to become the party’s nominee. During a speech this month at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rick Santorum tore into his GOP presidential rival, former Gov. of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, for buying into man-made warming and supporting the nation’s first cap-and-trade program known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Romney later opposed the scheme but Massachusetts did participate, and it has benefited from the nearly $500 million in economic activity the program has brought to the state.
A Tea Party favorite, Santorum has called global warming “a facade,” “a hoax” and an example of the “politicization of science.” Both Romney and Newt Gingrich, another candidate for the party’s nomination, have stepped away from their previous stances that humans are contributing to global warming in order to convince restive voters and donors that they are conservative enough to be the party’s luminary.
Filed in News and Announcements
Heartland Mystery Donor to be Unmasked?
February 20, 2012
Crickey:
Controversial US think tank the Heartland Institute has sent legal letters to bloggers and writers who reported on the release of the leaked Heartland Institute documents last week.
The Heartland documents revealed the key donors for the institute, plans for a K-12 curriculum based on a climate science denier agenda and how much well-known climate science denialists are paid to push the anti-climate change agenda for Heartland.
Among the recipients of the threat letters, Desmogblog, a prominent pro-science blog that posted the original leaked material, remains defiant. Crikey continues:
DeSmogBlog, which first published the leaked Heartlands document dump last week, is refusing to remove any of the documents or articles in question and said it will keep them in place as a matter of public interest.
“After due consideration, we could see no basis in fact or law for Heartland’s demand that we remove these documents,” wroteDeSmogBlog founding editor and well-known environment journalist Richard Littlemore.
Crikey spoke to the Vancouver-based Littlemore this morning. The legal letter is full of “logical inconsistencies at the very least”, Littlemore told Crikey.
“What they are saying is that we’re accusing you of theft but we can’t be sure that the stuff you have is stolen,” said Littlemore. “If the stuff is legitimate, then you can accuse someone of having stolen it. But if you can’t even satisfy yourself that the material is yours, then you’re certainly not in a very good position to tell anyone that they’ve stolen it.”
DeSmogBlog were sent the leaked documents after an individual pretended to work at Heartland and convinced the Institute to email them the allegedly confidential documents in full.
“If any of this turns out to be demonstrably incorrect then we will take that very seriously,” Littlemore told Crikey. “But in the meantime we look forward to reading and writing about the material.”
Greg Laden, a climate blogger at ScienceBlogs who also received the legal letter threat, agrees that the legal letter was confusing. Laden thought at first that the legal letter “looked like something some crazy denialist made up and sent me” since the letter he received via email didn’t include his name in full (it’s Gregory), the title was wrong (he’s a doctor) and the address was wrong (he doesn’t live at the address or know anyone who does).
“As far as I can tell looking at it, no one I know who is a lawyer would retain staff who are as incompetent as those who wrote this letter,” said Laden.
How can Heartland seek action against a document it says is a fake? “They can’t take down a document they have nothing to do with,” said Laden. “If it’s made up and has nothing to do with Heartland, it would be difficult for them to argue that I should take it down off my website.”
But he sees the legal letter as a threat from Heartland against those who write about climate change and climate science. “It’s obvious to me Heartland is interested in making people who argue against their point of view quiet,” said Larden. “They want people to shut up.”
Crikey understands The New York Times will tomorrow reveal the identity of Heartland’s “Anonymous Donor”, an individual who has donated $13.7 million to the Heartland Institute since 2007 and at times has provided 60% of the institute’s funding.
Filed in News and Announcements
Heartland Panics Over Leak: 71 Year Old Vet, Young Mom Fire Back at Threats
February 20, 2012
Clearly in a panic over the fallout from last week’s leak of internal documents, the Heartland Institute has gone to the dependable “Plan B” of authoritarians everywhere. Threats and bullying.
A number of bloggers have now received threatening but impotent messages from Heartland thugs, including 71 year old Air Force Vet and journalist, and a young activist Mom. See their responses below.
The Recorder Online:
When I read the original articles on the release of confidential documents from the Heartland Institute board meeting, (see They’re Coming for Your Kids) I was infuriated.
I reacted by sending a strongly worded email to the president and all the board members of the Heartland Institute.
Surprisingly, one board member and institute president Joseph Bast responded to my email.
Bast’s response is one that I would consider threatening. He said he was turning the email over to their legal department, the forensic staff and the FBI. He also warned me not to delete any emails.
Apparently, I was supposed to be frightened by the specter of this multimillion dollar non-profit (?) spending resources on an old veteran. The whole idea seems ludicrous and they know it. Still, I am not afraid of the battle if it comes. This is a tactic that big money often used to suppress free speech. See Gleen Greenwald’s article in Salon “Billionaire Romney donor uses threats to silence critics.”
During my career I have been in position for many sensitive positions and have had top secret clearances, I have been investigated by the Civil Service Commission, the FBI and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. I feel secure that the government knows who I am.
I decided to publish these emails so that you can judge the exchange for yourself.
From: Gary Wamsley [mailto:editor@berthoudrecorder.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 5:16 PM To: Joseph Bast Subject: Heartland Institute disinformation campaign
You should be ashamed of yourself. The United States already has a problem in keeping up with the rest of the world in science education and now you want to play a role in further destroying our nation as well as our planet.
You are a traitor to your own country. I did not spend 30 years in the military to protect the likes of you.
Gary Wamsley
Colonel, USAF, RetiredFrom: Joseph Bast <JBast@heartland.org> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:46:00 -0600 To: Gary Wamsley <editor@berthoudrecorder.com> Cc: Jim Lakely <JLakely@heartland.org> Subject: RE: Heartland Institute disinformation campaign
Mr. Wamsley,
I assume your intemperate comments are based on a forged memo that misrepresents our efforts in the area of global warming research education, so let me explain before demanding an apology.
The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit research and education organization. We produce top-quality research and commentary on a wide range of topics, including school reform, health care, budget and tax issues, and environmental regulation. More than 100 academics and 200 elected officials serve on advisory boards, helping to write our publications and review our work. More than 1,800 individuals, foundations, and corporations contribute voluntarily to support our work.
Last week, someone stole some documents from us and forged a memo claiming to state our ‘strategy” on global warming. See our statement in response to this attack here: heartland.org/press-releases/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-responds-stolen-and-fake-documents .
The Heartland Institute has never tried to “dissuade teachers from teaching science, “undermine” any other sources of research, or “keep opposing voices out” of the debate over global warming. In fact, our goals and activities are just the opposite: We have helped thousands of teachers upgrade the ratio of science to rhetoric in their classes on climate change. We have complied two hefty reports – one 800 pages long and another 400 pages long – summarizing peer-reviewed literature on climate change. We have sought to promote debate and a free exchange of ideas, despite efforts by the most alarmist voices in the debate to try to shut down discussion and ruin the reputations of any who doesn’t toe the ideological line of a small but politically powerful faction of the global science community.
The forged memo has been quoted in scores of articles and hundreds of blog posts. We are working to get those statements removed and retracted. Meanwhile, and regrettably, many people like you are being misled about our work and intentions.
Now that you know the truth, I ask that you apologize for your intemperate and very offensive letter. Since your letter is threatening, I’ve forwarded it to our legal counsel, forensics team, and the FBI. It is important that you not delete the email from your sent file, or any other emails you may have exchanged with other people while preparing it, since this could be evidence in criminal and civil cases.
Please write back to let me know if you will comply with my requests.
Best regards,
Joseph Bast
President
The Heartland InstituteOne South Wacker Drive #2740
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone 312/377-4000
Email jbast@heartland.org
Web site www.heartland.org
Read the rest of this entry »
Filed in News and Announcements
Solar Power to the Rescue as German Sun Bails French Nukes
February 20, 2012
Zachary Shahan in CleanTechnica:
Remember last year when Germany decided to speed up its phasing out of nuclear power and switch to clean energy and everyone (not in the clean energy industry) got freaked out about how German electricity prices would rise and the country would just start importing electricity from France’s nuclear power plants?
Well, as I just wrote, it seems pretty clear that solar photovoltaics are bringing down the cost of electricity in Germany. Additionally, German electricity exports to France have been increasing!
“Because France has so much nuclear power, the country has an inordinate number of electric heating systems. And because France has not added on enough additional capacity over the past decade, the country’s current nuclear plants are starting to have trouble meeting demand, especially when it gets very cold in the winter,” Craig Morris of Renewables International writes.
And, with relatively sunny skies above, guess who’s coming to the rescue—good old solar power from Germany.
“As a result, power exports from Germany to France reached 4 to 5 gigawatts – the equivalent of around four nuclear power plants – last Friday morning according to German journalist Bernward Janzing. It was not exactly a time of low consumption in Germany either at 70 gigawatts around noon on Friday, but Janzing nonetheless reports that the grid operators said everything was under control, and the country’s emergency reserves were not being tapped. On the contrary, he reports that a spokesperson for transit grid operator Amprion told him that ‘photovoltaics in southern Germany is currently helping us a lot.’”
Solar power production peaking at about 10 GW, 40% of capacity, lately. (Source: EEX, via Renewables International) Source: Clean Technica
Hmm, a bit of cognitive dissonance for solar power haters with breakfast this morning.
Read the rest of this entry »
Filed in News and Announcements
Solar PV Reducing Price of Power in Germany
February 20, 2012
Zachary Shahan in CleanTechnica:
Oh, the solar power haters are going to love this one—a recent study by Germany’s Institute for Future Energy Systems (IZES), conducted on behalf of of the German Solar Industry Association (BSW-Solar), has found that, on average, solar power has reduced the price of electricity 10% in Germany (on the EPEX exchange). It reduces prices up to 40% in the early afternoon, when electricity demand is peaking and electricity typically costs the most. There’s a visual of that (in German) here:
This cost-reduction phenomenon is known as the merit order effect, and it’s something we’ve written about in the past when writing about the cost of wind energy (wind does the same thing). But let’s look a little more closely at what this is, since it’s been awhile.
Merit Order Effect & Clean (Solar & Wind) Energy
“Increasing the amount of renewable energy on sale lowers the average price per unit of electricity because of the merit order effect,” Wikipedia writes. “This is because it counteracts the effects of peak demand.”
More specifically: “Wind energy has no marginal costs [wind energy producers don’t need to buy combustion fuel] so their electricity is the cheapest and transmission companies buy from them first. Having a supply of very cheap wind electricity substantially reduces the amount of highly priced peak electricity that transmission companies need to buy and thus reduces the overall cost.”
The same goes for solar.
Basically, when a boost of electricity is needed, solar and wind can out-compete any electricity source that requires non-free fuel (e.g. coal, nuclear, or natural gas), since the added cost of sending more electricity to the grid from solar panels or wind turbines is essentially nil.
The advantage of solar is that it produces the most electricity when there’s the most demand for the electricity—it’s a nearly perfect match.
Read the rest of this entry »
Filed in News and Announcements