A question about climate change/global warming.

Given the involvement in this "report" by a sitting congressman, this should be a Climate-gate-esque scandal that is covered breathlessly by newspapers across the world, right? Right?

Aaahahahahaha, shit.

(New Yorker) As the World Burns: How the Senate and the White House missed their best chance to deal with climate change

Loads of interesting new details (new to me, anyway) on the demise of the climate bill, and serves as a valuable epilogue to Eric Pooley's excellent The Climate War. Like a shortlist of the Republicans who might have voted for the bill:

Kerry, the de-facto leader of the triumvirate, assured him that there were five Republicans prepared to vote for the bill. One of them, Lindsey Graham, was sitting at the table. Kerry listed four more: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, and George LeMieux. With five Republicans, getting sixty votes would be relatively easy. The Obama White House and the Three Amigos would be known for having passed a bill that would fundamentally change the American economy and slow the emission of gases that are causing the inexorable, and potentially catastrophic, warming of the planet.

McCain's final demise into the Realm of the Blowhard:

By late January, 2009, the details of the Lieberman-McCain bill had been almost entirely worked out, and Lieberman began showing it to other Senate offices in anticipation of a February press conference...

But the negotiations stalled as the bill moved forward. In Arizona, a right-wing radio host and former congressman, J. D. Hayworth, announced that he was considering challenging McCain in the primary. McCain had never faced a serious primary opponent for his Senate seat...

By the end of February, McCain was starting to back away from his commitment to Lieberman. At first, he insisted that he and Lieberman announce a set of climate-change “principles” instead of a bill. Then, three days before a scheduled press conference to announce those principles, the two senators had a heated conversation on the Senate floor. Lieberman turned and walked away. “That’s it,” he told an aide. “He can’t do it this year.”

Some people in the WH were a lil' worried about expanding offshore drilling, but Browner was there to ease the pain:

The strategy had risks, including the possibility that expanded drilling off America’s coast could lead to a dangerous spill. But Browner, the head of the E.P.A. for eight years under Clinton, seemed to think the odds of that were limited. “Carol Browner says the fact of the matter is that the technology is so good that after Katrina there was less spillage from those platforms than the amount you spill in a year filling up your car with gasoline,” the White House official said. “So, given that, she says realistically you could expand offshore drilling.”

Stabenow (D-MI) has no idea what is going on:

The top ask of Senator Debbie Stabenow, of Michigan, was to insure that incentives given to farmers for emissions-reducing projects—known as “offsets”—would be decided in part by the U.S.D.A., and not just the E.P.A. “Ultimately, farmers aren’t crazy about letting hippies tell them how to make money,” Rosengarten said.

God, if only Stabenow knew how unhippy-like the EPA is (unfortunately).

For those (on ILX and elsewhere) that like to pretend that Fox News doesn't have an outsized influence on politics:

But, back in Washington, Graham warned Lieberman and Kerry that they needed to get as far as they could in negotiating the bill “before Fox News got wind of the fact that this was a serious process,” one of the people involved in the negotiations said. “He would say, ‘The second they focus on us, it’s gonna be all cap-and-tax all the time, and it’s gonna become just a disaster for me on the airwaves. We have to move this along as quickly as possible.’ ”

After Obama's offshore drilling announcement, I was totally bewildered that they got NOTHING IN RETURN from the Republicans for a HUGE CONCESSION. Nice to see that others were bewildered too, and that in fact, the giveaways were a persistent, destructive pattern:

But there had been no communication with the senators actually writing the bill, and they felt betrayed. When Graham’s energy staffer learned of the announcement (ZS: Obama's expanded offshore drilling), the night before, he was “apoplectic,” according to a colleague. The group (ZS: Kerry, Lieberman and Graham) had dispensed with the idea of drilling in ANWR, but it was prepared to open up vast portions of the Gulf and the East Coast. Obama had now given away what the senators were planning to trade.

This was the third time that the White House had blundered. In February, the President’s budget proposal included $54.5 billion in new nuclear loan guarantees. Graham was also trying to use the promise of more loan guarantees to lure Republicans to the bill, but now the White House had simply handed the money over. Later that month, a group of eight moderate Democrats sent the E.P.A. a letter asking the agency to slow down its plans to regulate carbon, and the agency promised to delay any implementation until 2011. Again, that was a promise Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman wanted to negotiate with their colleagues. Obama had served the dessert before the children even promised to eat their spinach. Graham was the only Republican negotiating on the climate bill, and now he had virtually nothing left to take to his Republican colleagues.

also: Kerry striking a deal with the man who sabotaged his presidential campaign; David Axelrod blows;details surrounding Graham's exit from the bill;the impact of the oil spill on bill;etc

And an appropriate closing:

As the Senate debate expired this summer, a longtime environmental lobbyist told me that he believed the “real tragedy” surrounding the issue was that Obama understood it profoundly. “I believe Barack Obama understands that fifty years from now no one’s going to know about health care,” the lobbyist said. “Economic historians will know that we had a recession at this time. Everybody is going to be thinking about whether Barack Obama was the James Buchanan of climate change.”

I guess I went overboard on October 3rd, sry.

Thought I'd share this little gem here:

“Carbon regulation, cap and trade, it’s all just a money-control avenue,” Ms. Khuri added. “Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.”

(from Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith)

looooooooooooooooool

Can anyone help me find a map of areas that will get hit by glacial floods?

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/space1/worldice.gif

http://i53.tinypic.com/34tbmlk.jpg

NYT

God, I'd love for the NYT's coverage to avoid unnecessary hedging, just for once

is it normal for it to be summer-snowing in australia?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8213932/Wintry-weather-brings-snow-to-Australia-in-midsummer.html

i don't know, but nine of the hottest 10 years ever recorded all happened.. in the last 10 years.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/globaltempanom.jpg

Just deleted three(!!) more people from my Facebook list for variations of the "lol global warming is such a joke because there is snow" bullshit. I'm afraid I may become incoherent with rage and punch anyone that says that to me irl/

http://ifglobalwarmingisrealthenwhyisitcold.blogspot.com/

YES

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rpiegz3et3E/S2EP3FeEYzI/AAAAAAAAALI/yGktwwyuK0w/s1600-h/33o18ud.jpg

Unfortunately, the chances of persuading someone who thinks of the coldness of winter or a heavy snow as evidence against climate change to read this is about .000000001%, but at least you can be happy to know that a relatively easy to read quick guide exists!

Global Warming and Cold Winters

That harsh winter that we are experiencing, it is not proof that global warming is not happening, but rather serves as proof that it is indeed happening, and even a bit faster than we might like to think. It also shows why the phrase "Climate Change" is a better term to describe the effects of man on his environment.

That post mainly just covers the coldness itself (partly caused by increased heat in the arctic ocean combining with the polar air above it to create the Arctic Corridor), but then there's plenty of other stuff that "climate skeptics" (most charitable term I can force myself to use) apparently refuse to read that explain the increased precipitation, which of course in winter takes the form of snowfall in many places. Climate Progress has a quick overview with plenty of links.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2011/1/21/1295623019230/Adam-Blog--James-Delingpo-007.jpg

lol

delingpole = nobber

well that wasn't too difficult

that was lovely to watch but i wanted more

ugh no more delingpole pls

if you've got the time, this series of videos is pretty great:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

that's part 1, they're about 10 mins apiece, and there's 13 of them i think

The Delingpole segment referenced above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

"I am an interpreter of interpretations"

THAT is the guy who broke the climategate e-mails?

how do people like this gain any authority or trust whatsoever?

I am forced to actually transcribe his closing statement just to stare at it:

'it is not my job to SIT DOWN and READ peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven't got the time, I haven't got the scientific expertise. What I rely upon is people who HAVE got the time and the expertise to DO IT and write about it and interpret it. I am an interpreter of interpretations.'

That is jaw dropping. What a prat.

That's a lot like the explanation some medical cranks give when someone asks them why they haven't done any scientific testing to see if their particular brand of snakeoil actually works: "I don't have the time to find out if I'm full of shit or not! I'm too busy saving lives!"

that quote needs to make the rounds. it needs to be his representative quote, that and perhaps the one about 'truly there just aren't enough bullets'. any paper of note that ever gave time to both sides of the debate in an attempt at objectivity needs to do a story on this and just publish that quote near the top of the page, to make it clear that one of the sides represents world scientific consensus and the other side is basically led by a twit in an angry clown mask who becomes incomprehensible under the slightest questioning.

Heads are going to roll for this, they’ll have to. But however many heads do roll it won’t be enough. Always remember this: the Warmist faith so fervently held and promulgated by the Met Office is exactly the same faith so passionately, unswervingly followed by David Cameron, Chris Huhne, Greg Barker, the Coalition’s energy spokesman in the Lords Lord Marland, and all but five members of the last parliament. And also by the BBC, the Prince of Wales, almost every national newspaper, the European Union, the Royal Society, the New York Times, CNBC, the Obama administration, the Australian and New Zealand governments, your children’s schools, our major universities, our minor universities, the University of East Anglia, your local council….

Truly there just aren’t enough bullets!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069327/climate-change-there-just-arent-enough-bullets/

Almost all the responsible and/or intelligent people in the world disagree with my conclusions. Therefore, they should be shot.

Truly an example of conservative 'humor' at its 'finest'.

from tonight's SOTU:

"Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen….."

Wait a second...did "clean energy" just get redefined as including nuclear, clean coal and natural gas?

Obama's been pro-coal since his Illinois state house days. I can see a plausible case for creating incentives (carbon tax) for converting existing coal plants to natural gas over, say, 5 years as an inexpensive interim solution that would reduce electricity generation GHG emissions by 40-45% (while utility scale nuclear, wind, solar thermal, etc are built over a generation). We're not going to get that from an Illinois (or Wyoming, or Montana) politician.

We're not going to get that from an Illinois (or Wyoming, or Montana) politician.

― Pauper Management Improved (Sanpaku), Wednesday, January 26, 2011 5:47 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

Or Pennsylvania, or West Virginia or Kentucky etc. We're fucked.

If the only way to get a massive boost for solar, wind and small-head hydro projects is to feed the corporate pigs some subsidies for (*ahem*) "clean coal", then I am willing to hold my nose and go ahead with it. Something needs to happen that to change the present fossil fuel-centric equation in favor of cleaner energy. This is a case where half a loaf is still likely to be a long term disaster, but at least smaller, slower disaster than preserving the status quo.

The argument I often hear in favor of clean coal goes along these lines: It's in our own best interests to perfect & distribute Clean Coal technology to China & Russia since they're doing it anyway.

I can see a plausible case for creating incentives (carbon tax) for converting existing coal plants to natural gas over, say, 5 years as an inexpensive interim solution that would reduce electricity generation GHG emissions by 40-45% (while utility scale nuclear, wind, solar thermal, etc are built over a generation). We're not going to get that from an Illinois (or Wyoming, or Montana) politician.

― Pauper Management Improved (Sanpaku), Wednesday, 26 January 2011 00:47 (13 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Converting coal to NG is not negligible thing to do. Since you are replacing baseload you want to be operating combined cycle which means new turbines and new or heavily modified boilers. There's not much saving or benefit over build new especially as you have to get that base load power from somewhere else. So essentially you are building new at ~ $750/kw. Cartbon tax would have to be huge to negate the effect of fully depreciated assets.

They need to change the rules on how thermal plants are costed. Fuel costs don't have to be factored in right now which means they look cheaper than they should compared to renewables.

The sad fact is that there is no way of passing an energy bill without votes from those bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. It means that way more than lipservice has to be paid to 'clean' coal and shale gas.

A gently effective demolition of Christopher Monckton just now on Storyville on BBC4.

rockin' the faulty thyroid look

it's ok tho 'cause he can cure aids and cancer and meningitis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y5j3v/Storyville_20102011_Meet_the_Climate_Sceptics/

Can somebody (hello, Z S) summarise why the latest kerfuffle about peer review is the crock of shite it inevitably must be?

xp Ed:

Coal-fired generation sites already have the water supply, facilities site and transmission lines, so replacing them with combined cycle gas would be relatively cheap (ca $1/W installed). Far, far cheaper than achieving similar emissions reductions via coal gassification and C02 sequestration. The 309 GW of coal fired generation in the US could be replaced for about $309 billion, about 20% of this year's fiscal deficit. Not all at once, mind you (it would take time, a decade or so, for shale gas production to ramp to required needs), and it would make no sense whatsoever if the coal was exported to be burned elsewhere.

But the point is to create a wedge issue to divide the political bloc of fossil extraction states. Before shale NG became economic this decade, it was believed there was only two decades of supply left. Once the general plausibility of an interim NG, long-term renewables & nuclear policy becomes accepted, then the consuming states & NG states would have the mass to halt further coal leases by the BLM in the Powder River Basin etc. The goal is to make coal off-limits globally, and quickly. When we're back below 350ppm in 1000 years any survivivors will have the records of the famines of the bottleneck century, and can decide whether exploiting the remaining coal is worth the risk.

xpost james

I have to confess that I'm not sure what the latest kerfuffle about peer review is!

This kerfuffle: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/wrong-is-wrong-a-reply-to-the-real-noise-at-real-climate/

Where does that $1/W figure come from. I generally carry $750/kW as a figure for capital cost of new gas generation so that seems higher. That said, that's an industry number held almost as a talisman and I should probably look at the EIA numbers again. I'd be very happy with a $1/W figure, it makes selling batteries $250/kw more profitable.

OK, confusion in my mind between Conventional Turbine and Combined Cycle.

xpost, that's funny, I read the original RealClimate post on the day it was published, but had no idea that there was a "controversy" that emerged out of it!

To be honest, I read O'Donnell's response at ClimateAudit.org, and then Steig's rebuttal to the rebuttal back at RealClimate - and both sides of course claim to be completely correct and basically claim victory - but I'm having trouble getting over the fact that O'Donnell is choosing Steve McIntyre's ClimateAudit.org as his platform! And that the link to the kerfuffle has a big ad for a book about "climategate" side, which of course has been repeatedly exonerated by a number of commissions (though, predictably, the exonerations got about 1/10000000000th the media coverage as the accusations). McIntyre is pretty renowned for being full of shit constantly, from the petty to the libelous (and renowned among skeptics as a hero), and like many other prominent skeptics, isn't even a climate scientist (he's an expert in the business aspects of mineral exploration . Anthony Watts, of WattsUpWithThat, another prominent skeptic blogger, is a weathercaster. Mark Morano, of ClimateDepot, is a professional trashbag).

So, I don't know...based off of what I've seen published in ClimateAudit in the past, it's really, really, REALLY hard to support O'Donnell's side. Then again, even the National Enquirer breaks a legitimate story every once in a while, so...? No, I can't do it. ClimateAudit is irredeemable!

uuuuuuuuugh

NOAA and NSIDC estimate that thawing permafrost will turn the Arctic from a carbon sink to a carbon source by the mid-2020s, a feedback loop "strong enough to cancel 42–88% of the total global land sink". AND, I'm assuming to simplify the study, they made the assumption that all of the carbon in the thawing permafrost would be released as CO2, and none as methane (many times more heat-trapping than CO2), even though it's known that much of the carbon in permafrost is contained as methane.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2nu6h5k.gif
Carbon emission (in billions of tons of carbon a year) from thawing permafrost

Wish more people would listen to this dude:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6TXXDSQwCE

From one of my local Twitter contacts this morning, after a major snowstorm hit Cleveland last night/today:

I just had to drive through nearly a foot of global warming in my driveway. #AnInconvenientBlizzard

To which I followed up with:

Confusing weather and climate = Not A Good Look

"My house's thermostat says it's 67 degrees, so how can there be ice in my freezer?!"

Global warming=hotter air=holds more moisture=makes more snow when a cold front hits. #nothardtounderstand

lol @ thermostat line

"say, why do we drive in the parkway and park on the driveway?!?
#icanalsiveannoyingandstupid

this made me laugh. a climate skeptic's graph, via tim lambert's deltoid:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2011/02/12we22.gif

i guess this quick lil' post is aimed toward people who get the feeling that all this climate change stuff is a little blown out of proportion, but i wanted to highlight the first comment on Friedman's op-ed today, which was written by Australia's former Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull:

Recently I was visiting with an Asian Environment Minister I knew well from my own days as Australia's Environment Minister. We discussed these issues and he said to me "My conclusion is that the short sightedness and greed of mankind - especially in the rich developed world - is so great that in a hundred years this planet will be uninhabitable for billions of people."

Turnbull goes on to counter that with a more guarded view ("I don't share that gloom and remain optimistic that before it is too late we will cut global greenhouse gas emissions and contain, if not stop, global warming. But there are some environmental challenges which are profoundly existential"), but I think it's worth mentioning that at least some political environmental leaders of the world recognize the gravity of the situation, and apparently they discuss this openly with each other.

PS sorry for linking to Friedman!

And really, this soon-to-be unanswered post belongs just as much, if not more, in the Energy thread. Or really, in a food/energy/water/climate change thread. I think there's already one like that, but the subject matter is so relentlessly gloomy that it attracts rolling eyes.

I dont get why people say things like "DO you belive in global warming" - is it really a question of belief when ~90% (yay tilda!!) of the world's scientists say it is valid? I guess the question is whether you believe in science at all