Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Weird weather on the march: snow in Saudi Arabia

Congratulations folks, we finally did it!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/29/global-carbon-dioxide-levels

great article at tomdispatch about the epic fail of journalism, focusing on the failures of reporting leading up to and during the financial meltdown, and the continuous failure of global warming coverage. here's a bit from the global warming part:

Is the Press Too Big to Fail?

Now, on the great subject of our moment, the press repeatedly clutches for the rituals of detachment. Two British scholars studying climate coverage surveyed 636 articles from four top United States newspapers between 1988 and 2002 and found that most of them gave as much attention to the tiny group of climate-change doubters as to the consensus of scientists.

And if the press has, until very recently, largely failed us on the subject, the TV news is a disgrace. Despite the record temperatures of 2012, the intensifying storms, droughts, wildfires and other wild weather events, the disappearing Arctic ice cap, and the greatest meltdown of the Greenland ice shield in recorded history, their news divisions went dumb and mute. The Sunday talk shows, which supposedly offer long chews and not just sound bites -- those high-minded talking-head episodes that set a lot of the agenda in Washington and for the attuned public -- were otherwise occupied.

All last year, according to the liberal research group Media Matters,

“The Sunday shows spent less than 8 minutes on climate change... ABC's This Week covered it the most, at just over 5 minutes… NBC's Meet the Press covered it the least, in just one 6 second mention… Most of the politicians quoted were Republican presidential candidates, including Rick Santorum, who went unchallenged when he called global warming ‘junk science’ on ABC's This Week. More than half of climate mentions on the Sunday shows were Republicans criticizing those who support efforts to address climate change… In four years, Sunday shows have not quoted a single scientist on climate change.”

George Will knows better:

Although electric cars are 40 percent powered by coal, that being the percentage of U.S. electricity generated by coal, Fisker was supposed to combat global warming, of which there has been essentially none for 15 years. As adult supervision returns, Washington may take seriously the bad news about its harebrained green investments and the good news that refutes the argument for more of them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-courts-finance-committee-give-obama-adult-supervision/2013/03/29/026c8190-add4-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html

i would wager that george will has talked more about climate change on the sunday morning shows than all scientists put together.

Fisker was supposed to combat global warming, of which there has been essentially none for 15 years.

This kind of verbal feint where someone drops a known lie into a sentence as an almost-aside makes me seriously want to murder people. Our local George Will-lite, Kevin O'Brien, does this shit. Makes me want to mail him anthrax.

An album by the band Anthrax, that is, JUST IN CASE FBI.

haha people are assholes non-shocker.

A recent study found that some conservatives would not choose an efficient lightbulb with an environmental message, even when they would choose the same bulb without the message.

Conservatives excel at cutting off noses to spite faces, film at 11.

Kind of would like to sign up for a Mars 500 type of deal atm tbh.

Like George Will, Charles Krauthammer is not convinced, and his column similarly gets syndicated everywhere I think:

from his declaration of war on global warming (on a planet where temperatures are the same as 16 years ago and in a country whose CO2 emissions are at a 20-year low)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-the-fall/2013/05/02/6fa564c4-b348-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html?tid=pm_pop

Chait seems reservedly optimistic, but I don't want to get my hopes up:

And within the environmental world, it is essentially a given that Obama will enact some version of the NRDC plan. Dan Lashof, its lead author, told me, “We are hearing that they’re looking quite seriously at our proposal.” A “person familiar with the matter” told the Wall Street Journal, “You will ultimately see a proposal from EPA to regulate existing power plants.” A group of electric utilities has already circulated a paper predicting that the EPA will do just that.

New regulations would have to withstand a certain legal challenge from the energy industry—though, crucially, implementation would not have to wait as cases wind their way through the courts. The EPA’s authority has withstood several high-profile challenges before, because the law is so broadly written; on the other hand, the challenges to Obamacare remind us that precedent cannot fully predict the behavior of agitated conservative judges. Also like the Obamacare challenge, the legal fight will play out against the backdrop of political war. [...]

So the administration and its allies have been mobilizing for combat. It’s not insignificant that Obama chose Denis McDonough, who has a deep background in climate change, to be his second-term chief of staff, or that he promoted Gina McCarthy, who oversaw the rewriting of EPA regulations in his first term, to run the department. Democratic Senators are vowing to block any House Republican attempt to handcuff the EPA. Working in Obama’s favor is the fact that Americans, while disturbingly blasé about climate change, favor federal regulation of greenhouse gases by huge majorities.

Lashof predicted the following sequence of events. The agency will finish drafting its regulation scheme by the end of the year. It will then take about a year of public comments and revisions, at which point it will finalize its rule. That will be the end of 2014, just after the midterm elections. Another nine months to a year will be required to carry out the rule, which will get us to the end of 2015—and the international climate summit.

thanks for posting that! i meant to post it the other day, along with some of the discussion that chait's article generated.

grist's david roberts mostly agrees:

What I think has my friends upset, and where they differ, is Chait’s overall assessment: that Obama is therefore “the environmental president.” The question here is — as it is for every historical figure, but especially Obama, and especially on climate — compared to what?

Is Obama a success on climate compared to what needs to be done? Ha ha. No. Of course not. But then all world leaders fail that test. Chait says 17 percent carbon reductions by 2020 is greens’ “holy grail,” but it’s more like a moldy grail. We now know that much more is needed. For the U.S. to truly do its part, to achieve carbon zero by 2040 or so, would require massive systems change, an all-hands-on-deck wartime mobilization. Obama is not delivering that, or anything close, nor could he.

...The question for me is whether Obama has been a success compared to what was (and is) possible. And here, I’m with Chait: If he delivers ambitious regulations on existing power plants, then yes, Obama will be an overall success on climate and energy, even if he approves Keystone. Given the situation he inherited — a vertiginous economic crisis followed by persistent high unemployment, a Republican Party now single-mindedly devoted to nihilistic opposition, and a series of choke points like the filibuster that give a committed congressional opposition almost total veto power — he has accomplished a miraculous amount. (Remember universal health care? That was cool.)

joe romm does not:

The entire premise of Chait’s piece is that the failure to pass a climate bill isn’t fatal to Obama’s legacy because, near the end of his 8-year presidency, Obama is going to embrace tough carbon pollution standards for existing power plants along the lines of what the Natural Resources Defense Council has proposed (see here). Modified rapture!

Now I don’t think one can discount the fact that using the EPA to deal with carbon opens the door to significant delay through the courts. Worse, if the Republicans can ever figure out how to win the presidency again, they could slow, stop, or roll back the whole thing.

And why wouldn’t the GOP? Team Obama’s catastrophic climate silence — a silence his White House inanely imposed on much of the progressive and environmental establishment back in 2009 (see here) — coupled with his utter failure to push hard for a Senate vote, has turned a winning political “wedge” issue into something that is mistakenly perceived to be a political loser by much of the political establishment. His embrace of an “all of the above” energy strategy, which is to say no strategy at all, has legitimized a massive expansion of fossil fuel production — and export.

of course i'm glad that apparently the administration is planning on pushing new rules through EPA. but hearing the words "the environmental president" tossed around with respect to obama leaves a really sour taste. no sense in repeating the complaints for the millionth time. the environmental accomplishments that he has overseen have been great - improved MPG standards, the clean energy stuff in the stimulus, regulations on new power plants. but he still plays politics with the atmosphere (apparently not realizing that it's not an option), he still pukes up Frank Luntz-friendly "all of the above" rhetoric, he still refuses to say "climate change". we just passed 400 ppm. the 450 ppm limit that's often referenced as the scientific community's consensus figure of what is reasonably "safe" is out of date. that was the number that was being used back in IPCC 2007 days, but anyone that has even cursorily followed climate science over the last few years knows that 450 ppm is far too conservative.

and then there's the real possibility new EPA rules on existing power plants could be rolled back. the actions that the Obama administration now appear to be taking with respect to new regulation on existing power plants could have been put in place back in 2009. back then, in the golden days of the cap-and-trade legislation, the main argument against relying on EPA regulation to tackle climate change was the regulation could be rolled back if/when a republican president came into power. if they would have put them into place back then, in the early years of the obama presidency, at least there would have 7-8 years for the rule to play out. as usual, industry would have screamed that new rules would be the downfall of america and trigger the apocalypse, but the actual compliance to the requirements would cost a fraction of what they claim (as commonly happens with env. regulations, e.g., the acid rain program's regulation on NO2 and SOx in the early 1990s). but now, the rule would go out in the final year or two of the obama years (if we're lucky), and a new republican president could simply roll them back as soon as they install their stooges in the proper positions, before there's a chance for the rule to prove that it can implemented without armageddon.

also, the inevitable suing by industry and delays and appeals etc etc.

anyway, given that there's pretty much no possibility of carbon legislation right now (even though you'd think a carbon tax would be part of the discussion on a "grand bargain" on taxes/deficit/etc) , obv. regulation is the way to go. i'm just pissed they didn't do it earlier.

Twenty years of corporate-funded climate change denial in a country deeply wedded to cheap energy has pretty much poisoned the well for a political solution in the USA.

but anyone that has even cursorily followed climate science over the last few years knows that 450 ppm is far too conservative.

rereading that, i realize that it could be confusing on several different levels (not least of which is that politically, "conservative" in the U.S. means anti-climate change).

i just meant that it seems clear that 450 ppm is not a "safe level". hell, it's likely that even 400 ppm is not a safe level!

fucking terrifying indeed:

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23510002/town-south-fork-ordered-evacuate-because-wildfire

this fire is burning all the way to treeline, from what i can tell. i've seen a lot of fires here in colorado, but they've all been foothills, maaaybe some montane zone stuff. this is subalpine/alpine shit. i wasn't even sure that was possible. anyway you can go to some places and see beetle-kill to the horizon practically. if it all burns, i can't even.

Creative destruction? The problem with many fires in modern western US forests is that they burn so much hotter than fires did a century ago. A fire so hot that it burns down to mineral soil takes ages to reseed and regrow anything but some very nasty stuff.

My cousin just lost his house in the Black Forest fire in Colorado Springs. His wife was interviewed in the Denver Post http://blogs.denverpost.com/food/2013/06/18/black-forest-fire-benefits/20160/

Some of these areas that are burning now haven't had a burn in recent memory.

http://activefiremaps.fs.fed.us/data/imagery/2013172/co-000/crefl2_A2013172193628-2013172194717_250m_co-000_143.jpg
Actual image much larger.

By the way, while current southern Rocky drought is severe, it will probably get worse.

According to this paper, by the 2050s, suitable habitats for all Rocky mountain tree species will move north by 600 km or up in elevation by 250 m. Ie, start planting trees from Albuquerque around Ft. Collins, and trees from Flagstaff around St. Lake City, now.

South America will probably have a bad fire season as well.

President Obama will announce Tuesday in a speech at Georgetown University that he plans to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants, according to individuals who have been briefed on the plan but asked not to be identified.

In a statement Saturday afternoon sent via the White House Twitter feed, Obama said that he plans to fulfill the pledge he made in his second inaugural address to “respond to the growing threat of climate change for the sake of our children and future generations.”

the accompanying video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcL3_zzgWeU

The full transcript of his remarks in the video:

In my inaugural address, I pledged that America would respond to the growing threat of climate change for the sake of our children and future generations.
This Tuesday, I’ll lay out my vision for where I believe we need to go –- a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change, and lead global efforts to fight it.
This is a serious challenge – but it’s one uniquely suited to America’s strengths.
We’ll need scientists to design new fuels, and farmers to grow them.
We’ll need engineers to devise new sources of energy, and businesses to make and sell them.
We’ll need workers to build the foundation for a clean energy economy.
And we’ll need all of us, as citizens, to do our part to preserve God’s creation for future generations – our forests and waterways, our croplands and snowcapped peaks.
There’s no single step that can reverse the effects of climate change. But when it comes to the world we leave our children, we owe it to them to do what we can.
So I hope you’ll share this message with your friends. Because this a challenge that affects everyone – and we all have a stake in solving it together.
I hope to see you Tuesday. Thank you.

i'd excited about the prospect of finally pushing the new rule on regulating new power plants, not to mention the (far more important) rule on existing power plants. the supreme court ordered EPA to do this SIX YEARS AGO, so it's about time.

less excited about hearing about how great nuclear power and natural gas are, and reaaaaaaally hoping the word "corn" is not used in the biofuels section.

Did anybody see the "Miami is doomed" story by Jeff Goddell in the new Rolling Stone?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-city-of-miami-is-doomed-to-drown-20130620

It was 85 F at 9am in northeast OH this morning. Last week it was cold enough at 6am for me to wear a jacket when biking to work. Just the normal ebb and flow nbd.

like ... no keystone?

don't think he's going to mention keystone today.

for those interested in watching, there's a livestream here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/live

supposed to start at 1:55 Eastern, I think.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/obama-keystone_n_3497292.html?1372180768

oh, nice! i hadn't seen that! and that article mentions that he's going to mention it in his speech, too.

Z S - "wrong about everything for over 30 years"

cautiously optimistic about this, altho really there's only so much he can do via executive order absent legislation from congress. EPA def needs to impose those rules on power plants tho, that's a big step.

reportedly he's still going to talk about clean coal and natural gas, so that sucks. but not unexpected.

EPA def needs to impose those rules on power plants tho, that's a big step.

totally, i just don't understand why it's taking a memo from the POTUS to do this? the supreme court already ordered EPA to do this in 2007!

clean coal is such a joke

I love how these kinds of speeches never, ever, ever, start on time

Oh. I just hit refresh, and it looks like he's been speaking for a long time and I missed it. Thanks, White House stream, for not automatically playing the speech once it started!

on the keystone statement, though (missed 90% of the speech so i don't know if he mentioned it there), i'm not sure the outcome is as rosy at it appears. here's what the huffington post article said:

President Barack Obama will ask the State Department not to approve the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline unless it can first determine that it will not lead to a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, a senior administration official told The Huffington Post.

but climateprogress points out two open questions on this:

This could be a restatement of typical Administration policy on Keystone: the State Department concluded that the pipeline would lead to no new greenhouse gas emissions because it assumed that the tar sands oil would be extracted pipeline or no.

...Will they determine that offsets are adequate emissions reductions? If TransCanada purchased offsets somewhere else that were carbon-negative, in theory they could argue that building the Keystone XL pipeline would not not lead to a net increase in emissions.

ah, the copout is already emerging. from the WashPo article:

According to a senior administration who asked not to be identified because the final decision has not been made, the administration will examine whether vetoing the project--which would mean the oil would likely be shipped by rail—would translate into higher emissions than building it.

gotta love the assumption there between the hyphens, "which would mean the oil would likely be shipped by rail", which is by no means a foregone conclusion.

thanks for giving a preview of the bullshit that will emerge later this year, unnamed senior administration official who cannot speak because they're not authorized but somehow appears in every news story!

man that guy has the inside dirt on EVERYTHING

i was surprised to see david roberts real excited about this speech

"This is vintage Obama. He refuses to wage lofty ideological battles, which frustrates the hell out of people who view those battles as necessary and inevitable. He doesn’t direct a lot of energy at bashing his head into walls. He just puts the available resources to work doing what can be done. It’s not enough — it’s not even as much as he could do — but it would be a big mistake to think it doesn’t matter."

i wouldn't say he's toooootally stoked, but yeah he seems pleased.

of course, this barely even made the news today, as top notch news organization politico noted:

If you were looking for live coverage of President Obama's big climate speech on Tuesday afternoon, your best bet was not CNN or MSNBC but The Weather Channel, which carried full coverage and post-game analysis.

The big three cable networks -- including MSNBC, which used to break for even the most familiar Obama stump speeches -- skipped most of the the president's speech, opting instead for coverage of the recent Supreme Court rulings (MSNBC), the Trayvon Martin trial and the Paula Deen controversy (CNN), and, in the case of Fox News, an interview with a climate change skeptic.

as roberts argues in his article, though, the lack of attention is probably exactly what the administration wants. they'd be fools to schedule it on the same afternoon as the supreme court opinion if they were looking for it to be top news.

graphic from http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/heat-to-roil-more-fire-weather/14619950 says it all

http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2013/650x366_06241647_hd26.jpg

http://desmogblog.com/2013/06/27/api-22-million-keystone-xl-lobbying-erm

Re the deaths of 19 firefighters

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/07/horrible-tragedy-in-arizona-are-we.html

If this had been a terrorist attack, it would be socially acceptable to do more than just offer sympathy and prayers for the victims. It would be acceptable to ask why it happened, and what we can do to stop it happening again.

But when it's a scorching wildfire on one of the hottest days of a record-breaking heat wave in a world growing hotter every year unequivocally due to climate change, then we're not supposed to talk about that. That's called "politicizing tragedy."

more speculation on how obama will approve keystone xl...

Based on conversations with administration insiders, here's how I envision the final act of the long-running Keystone drama playing out:
Secretary of State John Kerry, who counts combatting climate change as one of his lifelong passions, will recommend to President Obama that he should not approve the pipeline, which would send 35 million gallons of oil every day over 1,700 miles from Alberta's carbon-heavy oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries. Obama will decide to approve the project, in large part because he will have secured commitments from Canada to do more to reduce its carbon emissions.
Obama will publicly repudiate Kerry, akin to how Obama publicly repudiated Lisa Jackson, his first Environmental Protection Agency administrator, two years ago when she asked the White House to let her move forward on a stronger smog standard. On the Friday before Labor Day 2011, Obama announced that he was delaying the standard because of economic concerns.
At that point in time, Jackson endured as the champion for disenchanted environmentalists.
Sometime this winter—I predict in December—Kerry will play that same role when Obama decides to approve the pipeline.
The response from pipeline proponents, especially Republicans in Congress, will be jubilation. More importantly, approval of the project can only help, not hurt, Democrats up for reelection in 2014, including Sens. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, and Mark Begich in Alaska, who all support the pipeline and have more-conservative energy positions than Obama. But because the decision comes nearly a year before Election Day 2014, it will likely be old political news by the time campaigns kick into high gear.

...even though his climate speech last week suggested otherwise:

"Our national interest will only be served if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution," Obama said forcefully, prompting loud cheers from the audience of several hundred climate-minded people. "The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward."

Environmentalists cheered Obama's new "test" for the pipeline. They maintain that there isn't a way Obama could approve the project since its impact will surely "significantly exacerbate" climate change. People close to the White House read it differently.

"I think it was a clear signal to the Canadians to come to the table and put a good-faith program out there that could provide the kind of net reductions beyond anyone's doubt that would allow Obama to proceed," said a source close to the Obama administration who would speak on the condition of anonymity only.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/power-play/how-obama-could-approve-keystone-20130630

so does anyone know yet what year this is all going to get so bad that i can blow off work/bills and start hunting/gathering?

2012.

Cleveland Sets Record with 15th Straight Day of Rain

Today marks the 15th consecutive day of rain in Cleveland, setting a record for the longest stretch of rain during the summer months of June, July and August since at least 1900.

The National Weather Service reported 0.04 inches of rain by 9:30 a.m. at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, extending a streak that began with 2.41 inches back on June 25.

The Plain Dealer reviewed official weather service records for June, July and August going back to 1900, and could find no longer streak.

The previous mark - a 14-day stretch - was set from June 17 to June 30, 1928. On those days, there was actually very little rain but at least some each day. The total for those 14 days was 1.45 inches.

There have been streaks of at least 11 rain days seven other times, the latest extending from June 9 to June 19, 2004.

As for whether the current 15-day streak will extend longer, the forecast says yes. The National Weather Service say there is an 80 percent chance of rain on Wednesday, before an anticipated drying out the rest of the week.

Note that the article makes no mention of climate change, or of the fact that hotter air holds a lot more moisture than cooler air, or of the fact that climate change results in unpredictable and unseasonable weather.

WAS THE 14 DAY STREAK IN 1928 CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMISM AS WELL?!?!11

Plus Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and others have figured out that since the average global land temperature last year is the same as the spiked temperature from 16 years ago, that there is nothing to worry about

It also doesn't mention that it hasn't been just rain, it's been constant, ferocious thunderstorms.