More Extreme (Were You Expecting Otherwise?)

Dorsi Diaz, writing about climate change for the San Francisco Examiner, notes:

Last month, satellites showed that the Arctic sea ice had dwindled to the smallest size ever observed by man. Thirty years ago, when satellites and submarines first started measuring the amount of ice, there was almost twice as much ice as there is now. The vast polar ice cap, which regulates the Earth’s temperature, has retreated further and faster than anyone expected, alarming climate scientists.

‘This is a defining moment in human history,’’ said Kumi Naidoo, director of Greenpeace International in Amsterdam. ‘‘In just over 30 years we have altered the way our planet looks from space and soon the north pole may be completely ice-free in summer.”

‘‘Fossil fuel companies are still making profits despite the fact that climate change is so clearly upon us. Our politicians are putting corporate interests above scientific warnings and failing in their duties to the public,’’ Kumi also stated.

Getting accustom to moderate to exceptional drought

“Climate change is real and really dangerous,” warned the Huffington Post.

The severe drought across much of the U.S. proved stubborn once again during the past week as nearly four-fifths of the country was in some form of drought. And the area of the lower 48 states affected by moderate to exceptional drought expanded slightly, hitting a high for the year, according to data released Thursday morning. [Climate Central]

… moderate to exceptional drought covered a new high of 64.16 percent of the lower 48 states as of September 11….

… just 21.47 percent of the lower 48 states was drought free, which is down from 56.53 percent at the same time in 2011.

The drought is the worst to strike the U.S. since the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s and lengthy droughts of the 1950s. It came on suddenly and largely without warning, and although the main trigger was most likely a La Niña event in the tropical Pacific Ocean, the drought was exacerbated by extremely hot temperatures during the spring and summer. July, for example, was the hottest month on record in the U.S., and the summer was the third-hottest on record, narrowly losing out to 2011 and 1936. Climate studies have shown that the odds of severe heat waves are increasing due to manmade climate change.

Take a stand against corporate funding of voter suppression

“For years, the right wing has been trying to stop people of color, young people, and seniors from voting in order to help Republicans get elected — and now some of America’s biggest companies, like Duke Energy, are helping them do it.”

 

America and a New World Order

Duke has helped pass discriminatory voter ID legislation by funding a rightwing policy group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Voter ID bills linked to ALEC have already passed in seven states, and similar voter ID bills have been introduced in 27 other states.

That’s why we’re joining our friends at Color of Change and a growing coalition of civil rights and environmental organizations calling on Duke Energy to end its support of this rightwing organization.

Tell Duke Energy to stop funding ALEC and its attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

Supporters of discriminatory voter ID laws claim they want to reduce voter fraud (individuals voting illegally, or voting twice). But such fraud almost never actually occurs, and never in numbers large enough to affect the result of elections. What is clear is that voter ID laws prevent large numbers of eligible voters from casting a ballot, and could disenfranchise up to 5 million people.

The truth is that voter ID laws are discriminatory — African Americans, Latinos, seniors, students, and the poor are all less likely to have the photo IDs necessary to vote under these laws. For example, if you’ve recently moved because of foreclosure or some other economic circumstance, you’re more likely to have an address that is not your current residence on your driver’s license. If you don’t have a car, you’re less likely to have a driver’s license in the first place.

ALEC’s voter ID laws are undemocratic, unjust and part of a longstanding rightwing agenda to weaken the voting blocs that historically oppose Republican candidates. We have to expose the major companies like Duke Energy that are helping ALEC suppress the votes of millions of Americans before it’s too late.

Tell Duke Energy to stop funding ALEC and its attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

In addition to Duke Energy’s role in funding ALEC’s voter suppression attempts, Duke is also a member of ALEC’s Environment, Energy and Agriculture Task Force, which shapes ALEC’s climate change denial and dirty energy agenda. Legislation drafted and supported by this task force undermines local environmental protections, thwarts efforts to address climate change and prevents major polluters from being held accountable.

ALEC’s extreme anti-environment efforts, which Duke Energy plays a key role in shaping and supporting, directly contradict Duke’s frequently stated support for legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.

No smoking

In the past, Duke has been sensitive to public pressure calling out its hypocrisy on environmental issues. In 2009, after the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity was embroiled in a forgery scandal intended to mislead members of Congress about pending federal climate change legislation, Duke parted ways with the group, saying its activities were “not consistent with Duke Energy’s work to pass economy-wide and cost effective climate change legislation as soon as possible.”

The same is now true of Duke’s support for the American Legislative Exchange Council.

We hope Duke Energy will simply do the right thing and stop supporting ALEC. If they don’t, we’ll be prepared to shine a spotlight on them and make sure the world understands what they’re involved in.

Solar Tunnel

A European photovoltaic project, known as the “Solar Tunnel” is now in operation near Antwerp, in northern Belgium. The cover of the 3.6-kilometre tunnel is 16,000 solar panels.
Solar Tunnel

The project is the first of its kind in Europe in that it is the first time the railway infrastructure has been used to generate green energy. The €15.7 million ($21.5 million) project will supply 3300 MWh of electricity annually, enough to power 4,000 trains.

High-efficiency solar panels — 16,000 of them, with a rating of 245W each — were turned on, on the roof of a high-speed rail tunnel in Antwerp, Belgium (all of which were supplied by JinkoSolar).

The 3.6-kilometer (2.2-mile) tunnel was built to protect trains from falling trees as they pass through an ancient forest. The installation covers a total surface area of 50,000m² (538,000 ft2). The electricity produced by the installation will be used to power railway infrastructure, such as signals, lighting and the heating of stations. It will also power the trains using the Belgian rail network. The endeavor is estimated to reduce CO2 emissions by 2,400 tons per year.

Also see the World’s 1st Solar Crematorium at http://bit.ly/MR6fCO & also in India is Solar ”EDGE”; visit http://bit.ly/N1Mbwy .

Coaltopia

Writing for High County News, Ray Ring reports on unusual opposition, from Wyoming to India, that coal-export schemes have ignited:

The opponents want thorough evaluations that weigh all the impacts, with public hearings around the Northwest that would give time to speakers like Kimberly Larson, a staffer for Climate Solutions, a Washington group that advocates for wind and solar power.

“The coal companies need a new market for their drug,” she says, “just like we saw with tobacco companies,” which emphasized overseas sales when health warnings and taxes eroded their U.S. customer base.

Industry, however, prefers narrow evaluations — a local hearing that only weighs the construction of a new dock, for instance. And industry is optimistic: In the last few weeks, a couple of companies leased additional Powder River Basin deposits — with their eyes fixed on Asia.

Coaltopia replaces Ecotopia

Writing for the Daily Kos, Matt Wuerker falls for coal industry deception (much deception comes from a difference in perception) and encourage readers, at least in the Pacific Northwest, to think likewise. There are two grievous errors in the thinking he promotes.

While criticizing the coal industry for using a local focus, the Daily Kos article, “Our Happy Future as a Coal Corridor,” also emphasizes a local focus that lessens the focus on the total impact upon life on the planet as we know it. A quick view of current economics, and the average reader would see the need to export coal to Asia.

The second grievous error relates to the first. Wuerker wants the Daily Kos reader to see such harm in being a coal industry “corridor.” This provides coal industry representatives an opportunity to respond that this worry is wrong because the coal is going elsewhere for burning — some place other than the Great Pacific Northwest — some place in Asia, where electric power plants suffer less harassment by the government about producing CO2 emissions than the coal industry has to worry about in our country. (Sarcastically italicized.)

Meanwhile, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise again next month as it has since reporting started. Not just in the atmosphere in the Pacific Northwest, or wherever you are as you read this. The concentration reported in a frame on the right hand of this weblog front page is a global average. While it is a possible problem to transport the product through where you live to make money, it is not the major problem. The major problem is encouraging greater use of a product that, in the future, is leading to the end of life on this planet as we know it. Yes, one planet — this Kos critical post is avoiding a focus on Big China, other than repeating the cartoon. Instead, it attempts to ask readers to think critically about life on our planet.

Humanity is getting dangerously close to the point of no return

The San Francisco Examiner reports: “With an estimated 3 foot rise in California’s sea level expected by 2100, California Governor Jerry Brown is pulling no punches in dealing with climate change deniers.”

A new website aimed at rebutting those still in denial has been launched at Climate Change Facts. The governor used a recent summit in Lake Tahoe to announce the launch of the new website and to reach out to Californians with information on the science of climate change, scientific climate consensus, the deniers and common denier arguments.

Jerry Brown

For years the arguments over global warming have raged, with climate change deniers insisting that there was no evidence to support that man-made emissions have had an effect on the changing climate. Now, after various reports have concluded that man-made emissions (green house gases) have contributed to our warming planet and that we are indeed facing severe extreme weather events, the race is on to not only learn how to deal with our changing climate but how to slow down the process.

This is a sad “victory” for those that have been on the front-lines for several years warning of irreversible consequences if climate change was not addressed. The governor has been frank and forthright with this dire warning,”Humanity is getting close to the point of no return.” The newly launched website also states,”Just as we reached a point where we stopped debating whether cigarette smoke causes cancer, we need to end the climate change debate and focus on how to solve the problem.”

With record heat waves and record drought conditions in the United States along with a host of other climate change disasters, the race is on to counter the effects of climate change which will cause increased sea levels, more expected severe weather events including hurricanes, tornadoes and floods, along with billions of dollars expected to be spent on disaster recovery.

 

David Koch

Recent polls have shown that 70 percent of people in the U.S. now believe in climate change. And, I think David Koch is proud that he can destroy Life on the Planet as We know It, while making a decent profit.

O.K., let’s install 200,000 GW of solar

Just re-posted the announced growth in wind power in parts of the United States, and now the Big Gav relays that  ”the technical potential of photovoltaics and concentrating solar power (CSP) in the U.S. amounts to just under 200,000 GW.”

Solar panels on roof

According to a new study released by NREL, there is the potential to generate around 399,700 TWh of energy annually.

The U.S.-based National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has published a new report – U.S. renewable Energy Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis – in which it says, technically, 154,864 of photovoltaics and 38,000 GW of CSP could be installed. This would mean, photovoltaics could generate around 483,600 terawatt hours (TWh) of energy annually, and CSP, 116,100. Refer to the table for a breakdown of the different solar technologies.

Overall, it believes rural utility-scale photovoltaics has more potential than any other renewable energy technology, due to the “relatively high power density, the absence of minimum resource threshold, and the availability of large swaths for development.” Meanwhile, Texas is said to have the ability to account for around 14 percent of this 153 GW, or 280,600 TWh annual potential.

In terms of urban utility-scale photovoltaics, NREL says Texas and California have the highest estimated technical potential, due to both their strong solar resources and high populations. With significantly less estimated technical potential, it is thought that rooftop photovoltaics will be most successful in those states with higher population densities, like California.

5 Most Dangerous Climate Change Myths

Huffington post: “Reality can be profoundly persuasive.”

As Americans sweat out one of the hottest summers on record, we’ve watched in dismay as drought has withered endless acres of crops and pushed the federal government to declare “natural” disasters in more than half the nation’s counties.

As temperatures have shot up, so has the number of people accepting the scientific consensus on global warming. Seventy percent of respondents to a recent University of Texas poll believe the climate is changing, and about two-thirds of respondents to a Washington Post poll in July want the United States to be a world leader in addressing the problem.

Even Richard Muller, a Koch brothers-funded climate-change denier, has declared that he now agrees with the position long held by the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific organizations. Climate change is real, say the experts – and really dangerous.

The good news is that we may finally be ready to move from debating climate change to actually doing something meaningful about it. The bad news? We’ve lost many years in which progress should have been made to a corporate-funded disinformation campaign.

Time is running out. Our actions in the next few years will decide whether we can head off climate change’s worst effects — and that makes it critical not to buy into these five dangerous myths:

 

Myth #1: It’s all China’s fault.

Emissions from Gross Domestic Product by Country

Emissions from Gross Domestic Product

Reality: America must do far more to cut emissions for both moral and practical reasons.
Some U.S. politicians have long used China’s growing emissions as an excuse for inaction. But China has dramatically ramped up solar power use and still lags far behind the U.S. in per capita emissions. On a historical, cumulative basis, we are the world’s single largest emitter.

And we’re really kidding ourselves when we compare current U.S. pollution levels only to very recent, high-emissions years. The United States agreed, with the rest of the world, to use 1990 as the “baseline year” for comparing emissions levels, to avoid cheating on emissions reduction targets. While it is certainly good that our emissions have fallen recently, we must not forget that our emissions have increased more than 10 percent since 1990 — nor try to change the rules of the game by insisting on a later baseline year to avoid accountability for our pollution.

China’s growing emissions are a problem, of course — but what’s the best way to inspire change? A huge coastline and drought-vulnerable agriculture give China extra incentive to fight global warming, but developing countries rightly insist on meaningful U.S. cuts — that’s the only fair and politically feasible way toward concerted global action.

Myth #2: Cutting carbon pollution would hurt America’s economy.

Amory Lovins Envisions Industry Combating Climate Change
Reality: Fighting climate change is critical to America’s prosperity.

Drought is already wreaking havoc among U.S. farmers and ranchers. In decades to come, climate change-driven extreme weather and sea-level rise will threaten businesses, key infrastructure and public health around the country. That’s why America’s Clean Air Cities are urging federal action. At the same time, the cost of emissions reduction is likely much lower than anticipated: Reductions in other dangerous air pollutants over the past 40 years shows that regulation tends to spur innovation and technological advancement, reducing the cost of pollution controls.

 

Myth #3: Natural gas and fracking will save us.

Fracking is Killing

Reality: Natural gas and fracking pose huge threats to our climate.

First, there’s growing evidence that natural gas operations leak methane — an incredibly potent greenhouse gas — at very high rates. Because of these leaks, some experts conclude that uncontrolled shale gas fracking actually has a greater climate-change effect than coal over the whole production life cycle. Fracking also poses huge additional risks to air, water, wildlife and communities. Second, fracking is also being used to develop vast new reserves of shale oil.

Pushing China to adopt this destructive technology, as Richard Muller has advocated, would be like pouring rocket fuel on a forest fire. We need to transition to truly clean and renewable energy sources, not open up new fossil fuel deposits with damaging new drilling techniques.

Myth #4: Polar bears and other endangered animals aren’t really that threatened by climate change.

 Polar Bears swimming in Griffin cartoon

Reality: A large body of scientific evidence shows that global warming threatens polar bears, who depend on Arctic sea ice for hunting and all of their essential behaviors.

The thickness and extent of the Arctic’s summer sea ice have declined dramatically over the past 30 years, and this year’s levels are currently tracking below record lows.

Based on evidence including declining population numbers, declining cub survival, and the drowning and starvation of individual bears, the government placed the polar bear on the threatened species list. Claims that polar bear numbers are actually rising are false: At least eight of the world’s 19 polar bear subpopulations are declining and just one is demonstrably increasing (due to the curtailment of severe overhunting levels), according to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group. Experts say that more than two-thirds of the world’s polar bears could be gone in less than 40 years.

Many other wildlife species are imperiled by climate change, posing a threat to our planet’s web of life.

Myth #5: A new law is the only way to meaningfully reduce U.S. emissions.

Clean Air Act Handbook
Reality: We already have (from 1970) the Clean Air Act, a potent weapon against greenhouse gas pollution.

The Clean Air Act has reduced harmful air pollution for four decades. Courts have repeatedly upheld efforts to apply the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases, but the Environmental Protection Agency has been too slow and timid in using the law to control carbon pollution. Full use of all of the Clean Air Act’s successful pollution-reduction programs offers our best hope for quick reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

To head off the worst effects of climate change, we need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to no more than 350 parts per million. The United States can’t delay any longer. For the sake of our planet and our future, we need to get moving in the fight against climate change.

Source>>

Wind Power Growing Fast in Parts of the U.S.

“Solar power and fracking get all the press, but wind has quietly become a major force in the U.S. power grid,” begins Will Oremus for Slate. Well, Will, that is because they are more important. The advantage of wind power is how quickly it can go up and start producing electric power. And, what you say about the growth of wind power in certain parts of the United States is worth knowing. If you are a greenie-weenie, that is.

According to a new report from the Department of Energy, wind accounted for about a third of all new electricity capacity installed in the country in 2011. That’s not too far behind natural gas, which accounted for 49 percent of new capacity amid an ongoing boom in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

Overall, it still amounts to just 3.3 percent of the nation’s electricity demand—coal and natural gas dominate, followed by nuclear. But it has now been the second-fastest-growing electricity source in six of the past seven years, thanks in part to a renewable electricity production tax credit originally signed into law by George H. W. Bush in 1992.

Wind’s wild ride may soon come to an end, though. The tax credit is set to expire at the end of this year, and while the Senate has passed an extension, the Republican-controlled House has not.

Now the fate of the wind industry is becoming an issue in the presidential campaign. Mitt Romney on Tuesday toured a coal plant in Ohio to slam Obama for environmental policies that prioritize renewable energy sources over fossil fuels.

“If you don’t believe in coal, if you don’t believe in energy independence for America, just say it,” Romney said, according to the Columbus Dispatch. “If you believe the whole answer for our energy needs is wind and solar, then say that.”

Obama hit back on campaign stops in Iowa, arguing that ending the wind credit would cost the country 37,000 jobs. He included a dig at Romney over the old anecdote that he once strapped the family dog to his car roof on a road trip. From the Des Moines Register:

Wind Farm in Western Texas

“Governor Romney even explained his energy policy this way: I’m quoting here: ‘You can’t drive a car with a windmill on it.’ That’s what he said about wind power,” Obama told about 800 Iowans at a campaign rally in rural Oskaloosa. “Now I don’t know if he’s actually tried that. I know he’s had other things on his car.”

Despite its huge growth of late, the U.S. wind industry remains far behind that of several other countries in terms of its contribution to the nation’s overall energy supply. Denmark’s wind capacity is about 29 percent of its annual demand, and that figure is also above 10 percent in Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and Germany.

In the United States, Texas is by far the largest wind power producer, followed distantly by Iowa, California, Illinois, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, and, of course, Oklahoma, where the wind comes sweeping down the plain.

Hansen, et al

Open Mind notes that a “recent paper in PNAS by Hansen et al. (there’s also a recently released discussion paper on the topic) has caused quite a stir. The essential result is that extreme heat (beyond the 2-sigma and even 3-sigma level) has become so much more commonplace, that the only plausible explanation is global warming.”

In a sense, this paper doesn’t tell us much we didn’t already know. What it does accomplish is to show in practical terms the observable result of man-made global warming, which is not just to make the average temperature hotter, but to make extreme heat so much more common. What was once 3-sigma heat — which at any given time we would expect to cover less than 1% of the globe — is now at least 10 times more prevalent. There have been 3-sigma events before, it’s true, and because of that we know that such extremes have consequences. When they’re as rare as they should be, life can recover from those consequences. When they’re 10 times more common …

I have two criticisms of this paper. First, the exposition is not always as clear as it could be — but that’s a matter of style more than substance. Second, it gives the impression that variability of temperature has increased recently. I’m not convinced that’s the case when considering local temperature because part of the increased variability in “standardized” (i.e., scaled by the local standard deviation) temperature anomaly is due to spatial rather than temporal changes — different amounts of overall warming in different locations (i.e., different trends) — as I stated here. I admit I haven’t analyzed hemispheric data, nor did I (in the previous post) consider seasonal (principally summertime) temperature specifically.

But in another sense, temperature variability has increased precisely because of spatial as well as temporal variability. The point of Hansen et al. 2012 is that what used to be rare extreme heat is now much more common. Much. This is made even more true by the fact that some regions have warmed (trend-wise) more than the global or hemispheric average, so they’re even more susceptible to extreme events (“extreme” by the standard prior to 1980).

Even hot times in earlier years don’t stack up to what we’re seeing today. In their more recent discussion paper, they show standardized anomalies (i.e., anomalies divided by the local standard deviation) for summertime in the northern hemisphere, using a longer baseline period than in the original paper (in response to some critics). Here’s the color legend (units are standard deviations):

Here’s the map for the very hot summer (in the U.S.) 1936:

Note the strong heating over much of the American midwest, with a small region even showing 3-sigma (or more) heat (dark brown color). It was hot back then in the USA, but only 1% of the northern hemisphere was in the 3-sigma or more extreme range. Now look at what happened in the summer of 2010:

Not only is there a region of 3-sigma heat along the east coast of the USA and another along the north coast of South America, there’s a giant area from Russia down through the middle east. Fully 18% of the hemisphere is in the 3-sigma range. That’s not “natural variation.” It’s global warming.

This is, I believe, an important way to characterize the simple temperature effect of global warming because it puts it in the context of what we’ve seen before, of the conditions on which we have based building our modern civilization. The baseline period for their recent analysis is 1931 to 1980. That’s when we layed out the infrastructure which drives modern high-tech civilization. Those are the conditions from which we derived our expectations. But because of global warming, conditions today exceed expectation much more often than they used to. Much more often than we’re prepared to deal with. Much.

I did a similar analysis for the lower 48 states of the US only, using summertime-mean data for climate divisions from the National Climate Data Center. I compared the distribution of standardized (i.e., scaled by the local standard deviation) temperature anomalies prior to 1980, to those since 2000 (using 1930-1980 as a baseline period):

The most important aspect of this comparison isn’t the higher mean value for the most recent temperatures. It’s the fact that extreme high values — above 2-sigma and especially above 3-sigma — are so much more frequent. Much. And that’s the real problem. When a 3-sigma event happens, it’s a problem but we can deal with it and recover from it. When 10 (or more) times as many 3-sigma events happen … we have a problem.

That means we’re already in trouble. The really bad news is that we’re already in trouble from just the warming we’ve already experienced, but it’s going to get worse because it’s going to get hotter. You think the 2011 Texas-Oklahoma heat wave was bad? You think this year’s corn-belt heat wave was bad? You think the 2010 Russian heat wave was very very bad? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

That’s why Hansen et al. is so important. From a purely scientific perspective it doesn’t really add to our knowledge. But from a human perspective, it lays it on the line. We’ve had bad heat events in the past but now they’re so much more common they’re vastly more difficult to deal with, so stop kidding yourselves, it’s already a bad problem and it’s just gonna get worse.

All this reveals the utter foolishness of Cliff Mass’s distorted view that global warming has little to do with the extreme heat witnessed in recent years in many places. His argument is that global warming has raised temperature in the U.S. by about 1 degree F, but last year’s Texas-Oklahoma heat wave was 7 to 8 deg.F over large portions of TX and OK, so global warming is only responsible for a small portion of that heat wave.

Even if his result were correct (which it is not), he utterly misses the point. Rather than sum up the situation the wrong way as he does, Hansen et al. did it right, showing that global warming doesn’t just make heat waves hotter. What’s much much much more important is that it makes heat waves more frequent. Cliff Mass gives the impression that there’s nothing to worry about because our “3-sigma” events — the real killers — will only be one degree hotter, quite ignoring the fact that we’ll get 10 times as many of them.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE