Lots more of this in the future under global warming

Boise 101? Billings 96? The heat has spread over the entire nation. A few high temps forecast for today:
Austin 98
Baltimore 95
Brownsville 95
Dallas 97
El Paso 97
Fresno 106
Houston 95
Jackson, MS 96
Las Vegas 108
Memphis 98
Nashville 96
Philadelphia 95
Phoenix 111
Reno 100
Sacramento 103
Salt Lake City 101
San Antonio 97
Yuma 111
Just thought you'd like to know.

If you can't take the heat, maybe you should get out of the city

(Photo of time and temperature during heat wave of 2005 from Flickr and swanksalot/Seth Anderson)

Cities retain heat more than rural or even suburban areas. A combination of steel, concrete and asphalt that absorb the heat and large buildings that break up cool breezes cause what's known as "urban heat islands." That heat is retained at night, with so little vegetation or soil moisture to cool it down.

In New York City, night-time temperatures are as much as 14 degrees higher than those in outlying areas as close as 60 miles away, according to a 2009 American Meteorological Society study.

Now researchers at the Met Office in London are saying there will be an increased effect of urban warming as CO2 concentrations in the air rise.

In case you haven't noticed, a heat wave has descended over Washington, New York and much of the East Coast, with temperatures up around 100 degrees. Too bad the Congressmen who mocked global warming during the cold, snowy winter, are out of town right now. They might begin to have second thoughts. (Though, probably not.)

Increased CO2 will only make things worse, Met scientists say. Urban areas are warming faster than rural ones, according to the Met study, published in Geophysical Research Letters. The researchers forecast daytime urban temperatures will increase 5 degrees Fahrenheit when CO2 levels reach 645ppm, probably by 2050. Night temperatures will rise by the same amount, their models say.

Climate change and rapidly increasing migration to cities, especially in third-world countries, will create health hazards, the study said.

Some climate change deniers have said death from cold equals or surpasses death from heat, so health should not be a concern. However, the U.S. Global Change Research Program said winter cold snaps increase death rates by 1.6%, while heat waves drive them up by 5.7%. So heat is more deadly than cold. And the number of hot nights in most cities is expected to increase significantly.

The heat wave in Chicago in 1995, which killed some 700 people, was deadly because temperatures didn't cool at night and apartments without air conditioning got hotter and hotter as the days went on and it didn't cool down at night.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports in 2007 predicted with increasing global warming, there would be more heat waves with hot nights as well as hot days.

"Every degree is huge, in a city," said Stuart Gaffin, co-author of the Meteorological Society's New York study. "It's the difference between a blackout and getting through a heat wave. NYC this week was flirting with a blackout because of increased demand for air conditioning. A blackout would compound the danger and drive up the number of fatalities in a hot spell.

Which tells us we need to increase the capacity and modernize the electrical grid. And also that we need a price on carbon to slow down emissions into the air that will make all this worse and worse.

(Source: ClimateWire)

World is on track to have hottest year on record

(Map courtesy of NOAA)

The combined land and ocean global temperature in April, and for the first 4 months of 2010, was hotter than the previous record, set in 1998, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Land surface temperatures in April were the third highest, with warmer than usual temps in Canada, Alaska, the Eastern U.S., Australia, South Asian northern Africa and northern Russia. The Western U.S. and most of China were cooler than usual, NOAA said.

The global ocean surface temperature was 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the 20th century average and the warmest on record for April. The warmth was most pronounced near the Equator, especially the Atlantic.

Tell the global warming skeptics. (But of course they won't believe it.)

Sources: Reuters, ClimateWire, NOAA website.)

Why are Kerry, Lieberman unveiling climate bill Wednesday?

NOAA map of spill from Flickr and SkyTruth .)

The Gulf oil disaster has spilled over into the climate bill debate. So why are Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) going to release their climate and energy bill at a press conference next Wednesday? The environment for it seems pretty muddy.

Their third partner, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), has pulled out as a key sponsor.

Several coastal-state Democrats have said no way will they support a bill that expands offshore drilling.

Republicans and some conservative Democrats have hardened their position favoring offshore drilling, despite the spill. The GOP, Graham included, is saying chill ‘til we know more about the cause of the spill.

In short, Kerry and Lieberman have lost supporters rather than gain them, as a result of the Gulf Oil Spill of 2010. And they didn’t have 60 votes to begin with.

So why launch this bill now? And how can they placate those on the left – like the two Senators from New Jersey and Bill Nelson of Florida – to bring them back into the fold? And what about Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who wants more protection for Mid-Atlantic states.

Changes to the bill
We know they are changing the section on offshore drilling. Originally they allowed states to veto drilling within 75 miles of their shores and offered revenue-sharing as an enticement to say yes.

Now, they’ll likely give adjacent states a veto too, and maybe move the boundary out. For sure they will strengthen safety requirements. Few are likely to argue with that.

If they’re smart they’ll exempt New Jersey and Florida, and maybe Maryland.

But will that do it?

Nothing to lose
They’re only unveiling their proposal, not putting it up for a vote. They’ve gotten as far as they can keeping it under wraps. Some fence-sitters have said they want to see what’s in it. Speculation is they’re hoping eventually to pick up a few Republican votes from New Englanders like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Scott Brown of Mass. and Judd Gregg of N.H., or George LeMieux of Fla. if the public raises a ruckus.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will not bring the bill to the floor for a vote unless he has 60 votes.

Reid may be banking on public sentiment fueled by the Gulf disaster tipping a few votes in their favor. He really has nothing to lose and reportedly was putting pressure on the sponsors to get the bill out there for others to see.

Kerry’s hoping some will be swayed by a growing coalition of support from business, faith communities, national security and environmental groups. I wonder about the 3 big oil companies that were ready to support it, if the bill is made much stricter about offshore drilling.

Presumably BP won’t be at the press conference unveiling the bill. Neither will Graham – though in the end they may be able to get his vote, if they don’t entirely ax the offshore drilling part.

This won’t be the final bill. There will be discussions and wheeling and dealing and amendments once it’s out in the open.

The impact of The Spill
A lot may depend on what happens with the spill. If it can’t be stopped and tars the coasts of many states, if there are constant photos of birds and wildlife covered with oil and people who have lost their livelihood, some drilling advocates may be forced to come around. It is an election year, remember.

And if the leak can be is stopped soon (don’t hold your breath), then perhaps those on the left will decide drilling isn’t so bad after all and will take the best they can get.

Many agree the current energy situation is untenable – whether they believe in global warming or not. The spill reminds us of that every day.

And those who believe strongly in climate change may, in the end, be unwilling to give up on a bill that caps carbon emissions and advances clean energy, even if it does open the door to limited new drilling offshore.

It’s probably worth a try.

(Sources include Greenwire, E&E News PM, Agence-France Presse via grist.org, CNN, E2Wire)

EPA issues report on indicators of global warming

For a brief summary and some great maps from the new EPA report on global warming indicators, see Treehugger blog.

Provocative NASA study puts road traffic ahead of power plants as cause of climate change near-term

(Picture of auto traffic from Flickr and photographer Lynac)

A new study from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies says tailpipe emissions will cause the most global warming over the next decade. Next comes heating homes by burning wood and cow dung in poor countries. Third is methane from cows.

Electric power is further down the list, though it will be the prime source of warming by century’s end, the study predicts. The provocative study, by a team led by NASA’s Nadine Unger, was published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Policy implications
Does this mean we should turn away from fighting the coal industry and focus more on electric cars, high-speed rail and aid to third-world countries? Possibly. We may have a little more time than we thought to shut off coal – as far as global warming is concerned.

But this is just one study. It will need to be confirmed by others.

And the reason behind the findings is troubling. It all has to do with the release of aerosols that block the incoming sunlight and have a temporary cooling effect. Tailpipe emissions don’t have much of those, while coal-fired plants do. Some aerosols, such as sulfates and organic carbon, have a very short-term cooling effect (they are rained down in just a few days), while greenhouse gases stay aloft for decades.

Of course this is a double-edged sword. Aerosols have a known harmful effect on human health and on the environment. That’s why industrialized countries have been phasing them out.

A choice we don’t want to make
Do we have to choose between climate change and our health? Unger says, “no,” that we need to phase out unhealthy aerosols, but that an immediate focus on transportation will give us the biggest bang for our buck in the next decade.

A sound way to proceed is by attacking all sources – tailpipes, burning of wood and dung, cattle-produced methane AND power plants. If we can remove many of the sources of greenhouse gases, we won’t need unhealthy particles in the air to block out the sun.

To read about the study and see graphs go to NASA’s Web site.

See Q&A with Unger. (Caution: Don’t be biased by her picture. She’s a pretty blonde.)

If you want to read the study abstract.

(Sources: NASA, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, fastcompany.com)

It’s the moisture, stupid, not the temperature

(Photo of Capitol Building in last week's snowstorm from Flickr and photographer eped1999)

Heavy snowstorms in the East are causing quite a tizzy. Climate skeptics are loving it and spreading doubt about the validity of global warming. Especially in Washington, D.C.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) tweeted that “It’s going to keep snowing in D.C. until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’”

And Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-Okla.) daughter and grandchildren built an igloo on the National Mall, calling it “Al Gore’s new home.”

My, my, they certainly have it in for the former vice president.

But the truth is the heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic states are completely consistent with global warming.

1. The temperature is changing SLOWLY, folks. Only 1.4 degrees F in the past 100 years. That’s enough to change weather patterns, but not enough to feel.
2. Precipitation is not the same as temperature. More concentrated precipitation as the Earth warms was predicted by climate scientists. Whether it’s in the form of rain and floods or snow depends on if it’s above or below freezing. And the rain or snow tends to get dumped in some places while others stay too dry.
3. Heavy rains and snows are the result of more moisture in the air, which is caused by warming land and oceans. Water vapor in the air is up 4% since 1970.
4. The East and Upper Midwest were predicted to see see the most precip, while the South and West, which have suffered droughts, get less.

A study in 2004 said there had been a 14% increase in heavy rain or snowstorms in the past 100 years, including a significant increase in the winter in the Northeast. Another study in 2006 found a decline in precipitation in the lower Midwest, South and California, but an increase in the upper Midwest and East between 1901 and 2000.

The 2009 U.S. Climate Impact Report found “Cold season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent. There will also be an increase in lake-effect snows. The ice cover on the Great Lakes has decreased 8.4% per decade since 1973, which leads to more evaporation and heavier storms.

So don’t let people get away with saying unusually heavy snows, like those last week and in December, mean there’s no such thing as global warming. More likely they are caused at least in part by global warming and will get worse in the future if Congress sits on its hands and hopes the threat has gone away so they don’t have to stand up to the oil and coal lobbies.

(Special thanks to Climate Progress for its research and commentary on this topic. To read in more detail, go to climateprogress.org. For the U.S. Climate Impact Report see The U.S. Global Change Research Program.)

How to talk about global warming when it's freezing and snowing outside

(Photo of January snowstorm from Flickr and Wobblymol/Loraine Davis)

The snow is piling up, the cold is harsh. So what does that say about global warming? The deniers say it means the Earth is cooling, not warming. Some of your family and friends may be having serious doubts, too, about whether the planet is really heating up. It’s hard to believe when it’s so darn cold outside.

Well, it is heating up. You can tell people that with confidence. We just finished the warmest decade on record. Arctic summer ice has melted at a record pace. Last year was among the 5 warmest years ever recorded.

We don’t always feel that warmth. It varies from place to place and much of the change is in the oceans.

We’re talking long-term, widespread trends here, not specific weeks or months or specific regions. Even more important – what people find hard to grasp – we’re talking miniscule changes. Fractions of degrees that add up.

Climate scientists are saying if the average world temperature rises more than 2 degrees Celsius (4.6 Fahrenheit) over what it was is pre-industrial times, we are in for cataclysmic climate change.

Some folks wouldn’t even be convinced of global warming if this year was 4.6 F above last year. They are looking for changes they can feel – and feel quickly – like a 10-degree difference for a whole season. If the summer averaged 90 instead of 80, they might believe.

It doesn’t work that way. It happens slowly and insidiously. We need to look, as scientists do, at the slow, long-term changes that are, for example, causing early spring run-off of mountain ice followed by drought; lack of freezing temperatures to kill off pine beetle infestations; and wildfires exploding because the dry season is longer.

Climate isn’t the same thing as weather. Weather can vary widely, and right now it is particularly cold in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, due in large part to something scientists call Arctic Oscillation. That – to put it very simply -- is when pressure pushes cold weather further south than usual. AO is extreme right now. Britain and much of Western Europe are feeling the brunt of it, as are China and Korea. At the same time, though, the west coast of Greenland is having warm rain and parts of Africa are unusually hot. Alaska and northern Canada are warmer than usual, too.

So, what the weather’s like in Montana or Buffalo in a given month doesn’t tell us what’s happening the world over. In fact a Nobel-prize-winning scientist at the University of Montana predicted this week that his state and others in the Rockies are looking at more short winters, more beetle infestations and more wildfires. Steve Running says that while Montana used to have 10-12 sub-zero days a year, now has just 3-4.

That’s what it’s about. A matter of degree. Not weather you can see and feel changing year to year. But trends that recorded data reveal. That’s why we need scientists. And why we need to look at the results of the cumulative changes.

Winter will still be with us, and it may seem just as severe. But it isn’t, and you’d better believe it.

(Sources: Dot Earth, Climate Progress , The Guardian, AP, Missoulian.

Testifying to the EPA on its Big Polluters rule

(Stop CO2 stickers passed out by the Sierra Club at the EPA hearing)

Today there was an opportunity to testify at one of two EPA hearings nationwide about a proposed rule to regulate global warming emissions from the largest (25,000 tons/year) coal-fired plants and smokestack industries. Together these big plants emit more than half the greenhouse gases in the U.S. The EPA proposes to regulate them under the Clean Air Act, based on a Supreme Court decision, by requiring the "best available technology" for new plants or those making major changes or expansions.

I was among those who testified. Here is what I said:

"My name is Cynthia Linton. I am a teacher at Northwestern University and a grandmother. In 2050 I will be gone, but my grandchildren will be very much alive, and I worry they will have to deal with climate catastrophes because we haven’t taken action to cut greenhouse gases by 80% as scientists say we must.

I wholeheartedly support the Big Polluters rule and commend the EPA for doing what it was set up to do -- protect the environment. Some people forget what EPA stands for.

Large coal-fired electric plants and smokestack industries produce more than half the global warming pollution in the United States. So it makes great sense to focus on these sources of greenhouse gas emissions as a giant step toward solving the problem.

Britain recently banned new coal-powered plants that didn’t have technology to capture and store carbon dioxide. The law went into effect immediately. Not in 2013, not in 2017. But now.

We should use the Clean Air Act to begin cracking down on plants that are polluting the atmosphere with heat-trapping gases and prevent the building of new ones that worsen the problem. The rule calls for the best available technology for new plants and those making big changes. That could include using cleaner energy, becoming much more efficient, buying new equipment or, as a last resort, closing down outdated and filthy plants.

While a cap-and-trade bill languishes in the Senate and an international treaty is delayed, the EPA must take this significant step to ensure that the Earth and the people on it are safe in the future."


There was a tremendous turnout at the Rosemont Convention Center, where two long days of testimony had all slots filled days ahead of time. There were scientists, health advocates, professors, environmentalists and many other concerned citizens from throughout the Midwest. They included a professor who teaches a very popular global warming class at the U. of Chicago and has written several books, a scientist who does climate research in Antarctica and a young woman who said she was there because she is 22 and this is going to affect her future. Virtually all supported the rule.

Of course, the other national hearing was in Alexandria, Va., and likely attracted many lobbyists for big coal, big oil and industry.

Experts at a panel discussion hosted by the Sierra Club at the lunch break agreed the rule is a good first step and hopefully will be followed by regulation of existing plants. As one panelist said, "If there was no more coal, we'd find another way." They agreed that clean, renewable energy and efficiency were the way to go. They also agree Congress needs to pass a climate bill.

Arctic ice melt changing global thermostat

(Images of Arctic sea ice thickness over the years from Flickr and climatesafety.org)

While many are skeptical the Earth is warming, the Arctic is one place where the change is very evident. But some say there could be advantages to melting summer ice there – ships can take a shorter route over the top of the globe, massive oil and gas reserves are more accessible. Maybe Arctic melting isn’t all bad, they say.

But does what happens in the Arctic stay in the Arctic?

Probably not, says NOAA. Melting sea ice there seems to be affecting weather patterns around the world, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 4th annual Arctic Report Card.

Changes in the Arctic are “messing with the thermostat for the whole globe,” said Richard Spinrad, assistant administrator of NOAA. The report card compiles the work of 71 scientists in nine countries.

They found climate change was affecting the Arctic is many ways:
• Declining summer sea ice
• A shorter snow season
• Rising land temperatures
• Warming permafrost, which stores methane
• Changes in habitat and numbers of polar bears, walruses and seabirds.

Summer Arctic sea ice hit a historic low in 2007 and has come back a bit the last two summers, which has skeptics saying, “See. There’s no global warming.”

But what’s new and perhaps more important is the thinning of perennial ice, not just that which melts in the summer and then comes back in fall. The average thickness is down 2.2 feet between the 2004 and 2008.

The summer sea ice melt causes more open dark water, which absorbs heat and then sends it back into the atmosphere in fall. This cycle is sending land temps up, letting trees grow in the tundra farther north and affecting atmospheric circulation as far south as middle North America.

As old, thick sea ice goes away and is replaced by more fragile first-year-ice, new climate patterns are being set up, says oceanographer James Overland. “It changes everything,” he told ClimateWire.
• The ocean surface is warmer and less salty
• Greenland is melting
• Siberia has more runoff
• There’s less snow in North America

So, what happens in the Arctic won’t stay in the Arctic. We’d all better take notice.

To read more and see slideshow go to NOAA's Web site

(Sources: ClimateWire, NOAA)

Global warming update is ‘wake-up call’ to nations

(Photo of retreating Athabasca Glacier from Flickr and photographer Janet.Powell)



Climate is changing faster than forecast just two years ago by the authoritative IPCC, a new UN report revealed last week.

More CO2 is going into the atmosphere, glaciers and ice sheets are melting faster, oceans are getting more acidic, and perennial droughts are more common, the UN Environment Programme update said.

Global temperatures could rise 8 degrees Fahrenheit (above pre-industrial levels), based on pledges by countries so far to cut greenhouse gas emissions – double the temperature scientists in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said would be catastrophic. Some think tipping points will come in a matter of years or decades, rather than in a century, as earlier forecast.

Degree of damage
After assessing the latest peer-reviewed science, the report said:
• CO2 in the atmosphere is growing at 3.5% a year this decade, compared with 1.1% a year in the 1990s.
• At least half of the next 10 years should be warmer than the previous record in 1998.
• Glaciers and sea ice have melted since 2000 at twice the rate of the 1980s and ‘90s.
• Greenland ice in 2007 thawed 60% above the record melt in 1998.
• An ice-free September in the Arctic Ocean could come in 2030, not 2100 as earlier predicted.
• West Antarctica ice loss increased 60% from 1996-2006 and the Antarctic Peninsula thaw was up 140% the same decade. Closing of the ozone hole over Antarctic will likely accelerate warming there.
• Melting land ice and thermal expansion could raise sea levels 6 feet by century’s end, rather than the earlier predicted 1.5 feet.
• Marine ecosystems will turn over 60% by 2050 because of extinctions and invasive species.

Impact on treaty talks
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called the new report a “wake-up call” for countries meeting in Copenhagen in December to try to reach accord on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

"Shying away from a major agreement in Copenhagen will probably be unforgivable, if you look back ... at this moment,” said UNEP executive director Achim Steiner.

Countries still disagree about the amount of GHG emissions industrialized and developing countries should cut and how much rich countries should help fund poor ones for adaptation and low-carbon economic development. Some European countries pledging 20% or more in cuts (below 1990 levels) by 2020 criticize the U.S., which is responsible for the most existing atmospheric CO2, for doing too little. The House-passed climate bill targets a 17% reduction (from 2005 levels) by 2020 (that’s about 4% below 1990) and the Senate is thought to be looking at reducing that number. That’s pretty pathetic.

As UNEP report contributor Robert Correl put it: Emissions are accelerating. “We’re not going in the right direction.”


To download the report go to www.unep.org/compendium2009

(Sources: Dallas Morning News, Washington Post, UNEP.com, AP.)

Global warming to surge in next 5 years as El Niño and sun add to greenhouse gases' impact -- study

(Temperature chart from the UK's Climate Research Unit. It was uploaded to Flickr by T. Raftery.)


Beware. This coming fall and winter could be unusually warm. And that fast-warming phase is likely to continue for 5 years and be worse than previously forecast, a new study predicts.

A combination of natural forces have masked the full impact of rising CO2 emissions on average global temperatures over the past decade, but now they are entering a new phase where they will work in tandem with greenhouse gases to heat the planet, according to scientists from NASA and the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory.

Relatively stable average world temperatures since 1999 are the result of a downward cycle in sunspots and flares and a period of weak El Niños, the study says.

But now the 11-year cycle of solar activity is about to go on the upswing and El Niño effects in the Pacific Ocean are expected to produce more extreme heat, says the study. This is the first look at the impact of all four factors on global temperatures: human actions (greenhouse gases), El Niño, solar activity and volcanic eruptions.

The hottest year on record was 1998, in part because of a strong El Niño episode. The extreme heat that year led to droughts, flooding, severe heat waves and the death of 16% of the world’s coral.

(By contrast, 1601 was the coldest year of the millennium, following the giant eruption of a Peruvian volcano that spewed ash that blocked out sunlight. Among the results was a famine in Russia that killed one-third its population.)

The researchers are quick to point out that while these natural forces have an impact, they do not negate the importance of the steady rise of CO2 emissions and their baseline effect on temperatures.

While 1998 was the hottest year and the 1990s the warmest decade on record, 13 of the 14 warmest years were between 1995 and 2008, according to the UK’s Climate Research Unit. And 8 of the top 9 came after 2000.

“We're seeing a long-term warming trend driven by human activity, with natural factors affecting the precise shape of that temperature rise," said Judith Lean, one of the authors.

The study is to be published in Geophysical Research Letters.

(Sources: The Guardian, Climate Research Unit, UK’s Met Office and Greenwire)


CO2

Climate skeptics misread new global warming study

(Image from Flickr and photographer azrainman)

Oboy. The climate skeptics are having a field day with two studies released last week that suggest scientists don’t know all the factors involved in global warming. The contrarian blogospere is especially excited about research, published in Nature Geoscience, that concluded carbon dioxide only accounted for half of the extreme warming that occurred 55 million years ago. The sceptics’ conclusion? Science models showing warming related to CO2 are all wet. Ergo, we can stop worrying about throwing up all that greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels.

That’s not the way the researchers saw it.

About 55 million years ago, they found, the Earth’s temperature rose between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius (9 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit) over a period of about 10,000 years. (If you're a Creationist, I guess you can stop reading here.) Based on seabed borings, scientists from Rice University, the University of Hawaii and U Cal Santa Barbara said things were already pretty hot when it all started (there was no surface ice) and they speculate some event, like methane deposits bubbling up from warm seabeds, caused a 70% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over 10,000 years. (Most hydrate methane turns into CO2.)

If only half the temperature increase can be explained by carbon dioxide release, what caused the rest of it? No one's sure but authors of the study said it could involve feedback loops. And they say the unexplained causes don't mean we can stop worrying about climate change. Rather, future global warming could be worse than we thought, because feedback loops caused by melting tundra, changing ocean currents, and water absorbing more sunlight than ice may have caused more warming then than today’s models would explain. (BTW, the UN’s IPPC report on future climate change left out feedback loops because we don’t understand them well enough, though they realized the melting of Greenland, for example, could have a profound effect.)

Forecasts likely underestimate warming
In commentary published along with the study, scientist David Beerling of Sheffield University, UK, said climate forecasts “could be severely underestimating the extent of the problem that lies in store for humanity as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere.”

An analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists agrees the study suggests warming is potentially worse than previously believed.

So don’t let anyone tell you this study throws the global warming theory out the window. More likely we don’t know the half of it.

Looking at warming on a scale we can relate to, say the lifetime of our grandchildren, predictions of catastrophic warming in this century still hold – and may be a lot worse than forecast.

Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 in the atmosphere has grown from 280 parts per million to 390 ppm or about 40%. C02 in the atmosphere could grow more than 70% in just a century (not 10,000 years) this time, one study author said.

Sunspots and flares
Another theory for changing temperatures on Earth has been the influence of activity on the sun. A second newly published study, in the Journal of Science, links the two together for the first time, but concludes the cyclical activity is similar to that of El Niño and La Niña, in warming the Pacific, but has only about half as much impact on the temperature as El Niño. The differences in the 11-year cycles are “very small,” relative to the sun’s total energy and are short-term cyclical rather than a long-term trend. The study was done by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

(Sources: Reuters PlanetArk, Reuters blog, Science Daily, Nature Geoscience, Union of Concerned Scientists, ClimateWire)

Obama plans to reverse Bush and give California waiver for tailpipe emission limits

(Photo of President-elect Barack Obama from Flickr and and photographer jmtimages/Jack Thielepape)

News Update: A waiver to free California and many other states to set more stringent tailpipe emission standards is among many reversals of Bush executive actions President-elect Obama plans to take quickly upon entering office. Bush’s EPA denied the waiver, which would let California require a 30% cut in emissions from vehicles between 2009 and 2016, mandating fuel economy of at least 36 mpg by that time. 17 other states adopted that law but could not implement it because of the EPA ruling. Additional states, including Illinois, are trying to pass such a ‘clean car’ law. This is just one of about 200 executive measures Obama plans to reverse, ranging from stem cell research to international family planning. On the climate front, it is expected he will pay special attention to a brand new book, “Change for America,” by the Center for American Progress, headed by John Podesta, chair of Obama’s transition team. The book recommends that the new president quickly appoint a National Energy Council to coordinate all policy related to global warming. It would make sure all steps were coordinated and ensure attention for climate change inside the White House. Meanwhile, President Bush is planning some 11th-hour loosening of regulations on power plants near national parks, mountain-top removal coal mining in Appalachia and uranium mining near the Grand Canyon. (Sources: Washington Post, McClatchy Newspapers)

Waxman-Dingell power struggle in House could set direction for global warming bill

(Photo of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) from Flickr, Public Citizen and photographer Bridgette Blair)

Weekly Angst: If the House can’t pass a good climate change bill with its current leadership, then the thinking is a coup may be in order. Thus liberal Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has launched an effort to usurp the chairmanship held by conservative auto-industry ally Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.). Dingell is head of Energy Committee, responsible for bringing global warming legislation to the floor, but has been moving very slowly over the past two years, finally issuing a draft proposal last month. Waxman is the No. 2 Democrat on the committee.

At the same time, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is considering going after Dingell colleague Rick Boucher’s (D-Va.) post as head of Energy’s important subcommittee on air quality. In a move to circumvent industry-friendly octogenarian Dingell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) named Markey to chair a select committee on global warming over for past 2 years. He held hearings but had no authority over legislation in that post.

Dingell-Boucher bill
Boucher has worked with Dingell to issue a series of white papers and co-authored his proposal, which:
• Relies on a cap-and-trade system covering 88% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.
• Sets a goal of reducing GHG 6% (below 2005 levels) by 2020, 44% in 2030 and 80% by 2050.
• Phases in requirements for utilities in 2012, large industrial plants in 2014 and residential and commercial distribution companies for natural gas in 2017.
• Sidesteps how carbon allowances would be distributed, but says any free credits would be phased out by 2026.
• Increases building code efficiency of 30% by 2010 and 50% by 2020.
• Allows companies to meet some of their compliance targets by offsets, as well as banking or borrowing credits.

Letter of Principles
Waxman, Markey and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) presented their own Letter of Principles signed by 152 House members who support – among other things – a faster reduction of emissions to 15-20 percent below current levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by mid-century and would auction all allowances. For more on the Letter of Principals, see an earlier post of Earthling Angst.

Dingell and Waxman are now in a rush to round up House members to support their bids for the chairmanship. Dingell is favored to get support from reps from oil and coal states. Waxman is seen as friendlier to expected Obama Administration’s policies.

(Source: E&E News PM)

‘Stevens effect’ upsets predictions of defeat, while Senate becomes more environment-friendly

(Photo of Jon Stuart spoofing Sen. Ted Stevens on The Daily Show from Flickr and photographer Ellen van den Berg

Nov. 6 update: Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith (R) has conceded to Dem challenger Jeff Merkley, who will be another reliable vote for global warming legislation.

News Update: Forget the ‘Bradley effect.” We now have the “Stevens effect.” Convicted Ted Stevens (R) of Alaska was down 10 points in the polls right before Election Day. But Wednesday afternoon he was leading as votes continued to be counted. Apparently people didn't want to admit to pollsters that they were voting for a convicted felon. Stevens, targeted by the League of Conservation Voters as one of their Dirty Dozen,is about 4,000 votes ahead of his challenger Mark Begich (D). Still to be counted are nearly 50,000 absentee and early-voting ballots, however. Begich would be better for the environment. Stevens' fellow Dirty Dozen colleague Rep. Don Young (R) also was leading Wednesday. Other LCV Dirty Dozen targets who survived were Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member on the Environment Committee, who doesn't believe in global warming. But there’s good news too. Headed for the Senate and likely to help the cause considerably are Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and his cousin Mark Udall (D-Colo.), as well as Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.). Mark Warner (D) will replace John Warner (R) from Virginia, though John was a pretty good friend of those fighting climate change. Still hanging in the balance, pending a recount, is Al Franken (Minn,) who is several hundred votes behind incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R), though Norm’s voting record hasn’t been bad of late. Another undecided race pits incumbent Gordon Smith (R) against challenger Jeff Merkley (D)in Oregon. Merkley trails slightly but some say votes still to be counted are from Democratic districts. With help from Independents Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Joe Lieberman (Conn.), as well as progressive Republicans like Susan Collins and Olympia Stowe of Maine, President Obama may be able to pass significant global warming legislation. It’ll be interesting to see how John McCain votes, if he votes, now that he’s no longer beholden to the right wing of his party.

Update on key Senate races, and ballot item to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2040 in SF

(Photo of voters from Flickr and photographer .micheal.newman)

Weekly Angst: We have some great chances to change the playing field for global warming this Election Day, not only by electing Barack Obama president, but also bringing a half dozen or more champions for the environment into the Senate. As of this weekend, it looks like Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) is now strongly on track to defeat convicted felon Ted Stevens (R) in Alaska. Stevens was one of the League of Conservation Voters’ Dirty Dozen. Begich leads by 10.3 points in Real Clear Politics’ polling average. In other races where environmentalists are in the lead, the Udall cousins, Tom of New Mexico and Mark of Colorado, both Dems, have commanding leads in their respective races for Republican senate seats. Tom is 14.6 points ahead and Mark 12.5. In New Hampshire, former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) is well ahead (9.8) in her effort to beat incumbent John Sununu.

Two other important races for global warming are leaning toward the candidate favored by environmentalists: Kay Hagan (D) in North Carolina (3.7), Jeff Merkley (D) in Oregon(5.3). In Minnesota Al Franken (D), endorsed by some environmental groups is now trailing incumbent Norm Coleman by an average of 2.2 points in a close race. Another close contest is led by Dirty Dozen’s Mitch McConnell, Republican Minority Leader, whose average lead is 4 points. Unhappily No. 1 on the Dirty Dozen list, Sen. James “Global Warming is a hoax” Inhofe (R-Okla.), is sailing easily to re-election with a lead of 16.7. His opponent, Andrew Rice, can’t rely on Barack Obama’s coattails either, because McCain leads in Oklahoma by 29 points. For more on these Senate candidates, check my post of 2 weeks ago.

Dirty Dozen House members
Several House members targeted by LCV look headed for defeat. Rep. Don Young (R), Alaska’s only Congressman, is running about 8 points behind Dem. Ethan Berkowitz. Young, like Sen. Ted Stevens, has served a long, long time. This red state could lose 2 of its 3 seats in Washington to Democrats. Anne Northrup (R-Ky.) is trailing John Yarmuth (D) by double digits. And Dean Andal (R-Calif.) is 11 points behind Jerry McNerney (D). Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) trailed challenger Mark Schnauer (D) by 8 in the one poll I could find. It’s unclear what’s happening in his Michigan Dirty Dozen colleague Joe Knollenberg’s(R) race against Gary Peters, and DD’s Sam Graves (R-Mo.) has a strong lead to maintain his seat.

Renewable energy on the ballot
Those wacky San Franciscans are way out front once again. This time they hope to pass Proposition H, which would let the city take ownership of the local distribution channels of PG&E, the electric company, and push for 100% renewable energy in the next 3 decades. Supported by 8 of 11 city supervisors, the Sierra Club and the Democratic Party, Prop. H calls for a study of whether the city should become its own electricity provider. Passage would allow the city to issue bonds to pay for the distribution channels, regardless of what the study finds. It also would be able to build wind farms and encourage more rooftop solar panels. Shorter-term goals for the switch to renewable energy are 51% by 2017 and 75% by 2030. PG&E now has 13% renewables.

Part of Pickens Plan also on ballot
A controversial initiative, Prop. 10, will have Californians voting on part of the Pickens Plan – the natural gas part. Pickens himself is the brains behind the ballot measure to provide incentives for vehicles that run on condensed natural gas. His company, Clean Energy Fuels, is bankrolling the measure and environmental groups point out that he stands to benefit financially. Prop. 10 would authorize $5 billion in bonds for renewable energy and alternative fuels, which would include the fossil fuel natural gas. Half the money would go to buyers of alt-fuel vehicles. The Honda Civic that runs on CNG would get a $10,000 rebate, while hybrid Prius would get only $2,000. The measure is opposed by the Sierra Club, LCV and Union of Concerned Scientists. It sets the standard for low-carbon fuels at just 10% less than emissions from gasoline.(BTW, the wind part of Pickens Plan is being downsized because of the credit crunch, T. Boone told the Charlotte Observer last week -- though he wouldn't say by how much. He reportedly has lost hundreds of millions from his hedge fund in the past month.) Also, on the ballot in California is a measure to sell bonds for a high-speed train line between LA and San Francisco.

And then, of course, there’s Obama
In case anyone needs reminding, see my earlier post on why he’s much better than McCain on global warming. And in GOP Veepmate Sarah Palin’s energy policy speech this week, she never once mentioned global warming or climate change.

(Sources include: ClimateWire, Greenwire, Realclearpolitics)

China fossil fuel emissions on track to double

(Photo of pollution haze in Beijing from Flickr and photographer Addictive Picasso)

New Update: A new report from Chinese researchers wsays that greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels will double by 2030 if serious steps aren’t taken to cut them. “China Energy Report,” from the Chinese Academy of Scientists, warns of drastic repercussions if China tries to follow in the steps of developed countries on energy use. Lead author is Wei Yiming, who worked with the UN panel that assessed global warming. The report does not include emissions from farming or deforestation. The Chinese government predicted last year that the country would emit an estimated 2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2050. The new report estimates 3-4 billion tons. China passed up the U.S. in GHG emissions last year. The Oak Ridge Laboratory estimates U.S. emissions at 1.6 billion in 2007 and China’s at 1.8 billion. (Sources: Reuters, thedailygreen)

Senate races may tip Congress on global warming

(Photo of Cong. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) speaking at Democratic Convention from Flickr and photographer Jeffrey Beall)

Weekly Angst: Over the past 2 years a narrowly divided Senate has stymied all kinds of efforts to curb global warming. Now we have a chance to elect 8 new senators who could turn that around. In 6 of the 8 races that offer a clear choice, the environmental candidate either leads or is neck-and-neck with an anti-environment one. The 7th race looks bad and the 8th appears to be a lost cause. The key races are in New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire, Oregon, North Carolina, Alaska, Kentucky and Oklahoma. But there’s also mention of Minnesota and Maine at the end of this blog.

New Mexico: Cong. Tom Udall (D) has a commanding lead over Cong. Steve Pearce (R). Udall leads in the Real Clear Politics average of polls by a commanding 17.6 percentage points. Udall, endorsed by a coalition of 5 national environmental groups, is the son of Stewart Udall, who was Interior Secretary under Kennedy and Johnson. Udall co-wrote the Udall-Platts renewable electricity standard (RES) bill that passed the House last year but not the Senate. It would have mandated that power plants use 15% renewable energy by 2020. He has a lifetime score of 96% with the League of Conservation Voters and is seen as someone who would be a leader in the Senate. His opponent is one of LCV’s Dirty Dozen, with a lifetime score of only 1%. He owns millions of dollars worth of Key Energy stock and voted against repeal of oil subsidies, RES and better fuel economy standards for cars. They are vying for the vacancy left by Republican Pete Domenici’s retirement.

Colorado: Tom’s cousin Mark Udall (D) is a 5-term congressman who also has the endorsement of the 5 national groups who see him as another potential leader against global warming in the Senate. Mark leads his opponent by 9.3 points. The son of “Mo” Udall, who served in Congress 30 years and ran for president, Mark had a 95% LCV score in the last Congress and 100% every term before that. He was involved in passing RES and mandating fuel efficiency for cars (CAFE). He’s running against another Dirty Dozen candidate, former Cong. Bob Schaffer (R), who left Congress to work for an oil company. His lifetime LCV score is 5%. He supports drilling in ANWR and opposes more fuel efficient vehicles and incentives for energy conservation. They are competing for the seat held by Sen. Wayne Allard (R).

New Hampshire: Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) is the third candidate seen as a leader against global warming and supported by the coalition of 5 organizations (LCV, Sierra Club, Environment America, Defense of Wildlife Action Fund and Clean Water Action.) As governor, she made her state a leader in clean energy. N.H. was the first state to pass a law requiring power plants to cut emissions of 4 pollutants and she made state buildings more energy efficient and promoted alternative energy. She is challenging incumbent Sen. John Sununu (R) and leads him by nearly 6 points in the polls. Sununu has voted for drilling in ANWR, opposes a binding international climate change treaty, and helped block votes on fuel economy, clean energy and the repeal of big oil subsidies. His lifetime LCV average is 35%.

North Carolina: State Sen. Kay Hagan (D), endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters and Environment America, has a narrow lead of 3.4 over incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R). Hagan has an 85% score from the N.C. Conservation Council and is considered a proven leader for clean, renewable energy. She has supported solar energy and an RES for N.C. and opposed big handouts to oil and gas. Dole, one of LCV’s Dirty Dozen, has a lifetime score of just 4%. She has consistently voted for Big Oil and against CAFE standards. She supports incentives for coal and other dirty technologies.

Oregon: This is another state where the incumbent Republican is trailing slightly behind the Dem challenger, State House Speaker Jeff Merkley.
Merkley has a record of leadership in enacting renewable energy solutions, including an RES of 25% by 2025 and favors cutting GHG by 80% by 2050. Merkley leads by 3.3 points and has strong support from Environment America. Incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith, a 2-term senator, is “an election year environmentalist,” according to Environment America. Generally he has sided with the oil and auto industries and voted against fuel efficiency and curbing global warming, while favoring drilling in ANWR. His lifetime LCV score is 37%.

Alaska: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) is challenging 40-year incumbent Ted Steven (R) of bridge-to-nowhere fame and currently on trial for corruption involving gifts and home improvements from an oil man. Begich holds a 2.3 lead in polls and the race is considered a toss-up, despite McCain-Palin's huge lead there. While he has the Alaskan affinity for drilling in ANWR, Begich says Alaska is “ground zero” for global warming and feeling its affects more than anyplace else. He joined the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Initiative and has replaced streetlights with LEDs, shut down city computers when they’re not in use and harnessed methane from landfills. Stevens, in addition to his other problems, is one of the Dirty Dozen for his environmental policies. He has a 14% lifetime voting record. He consistently votes for tax breaks for oil and has collected $460,000 in gas and oil contributions.

Kentucky: Challenger Bruce Lunsford (D) is putting up a good fight against House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, though McConnell leads by 6.5 points. While favoring “clean coal” Lunsford also touts investment in renewable resources, efficiency and hybrid cars. He’s a health company entrepreneur and raises thoroughbreds. McConnell is one of LCV’s Dirty Dozen and is considered an “impassable roadblock in the way of clean energy efforts." So it’s more a matter of getting rid of McConnell, who’s position is powerful, than of pushing Lunsford. But 6.5 two weeks out is not encouraging.

Oklahoma: Even more discouraging is Andrew Rice’s (D) challenge against incumbent James Inhofe (R), who won’t even acknowledge global warming exists. Rice trails by 18 points. He is endorsed by the LCV. He favors putting a price on carbon, accelerating the CAFE standards and passing an RES. Inhofe, No. 1 on the Dirty Dozen list, is ranking member of the Environment Committee (used to be chairman) and has threatened to filibuster every piece of global warming legislation. His lifetime score is 5%. He has accepted nearly $1 million from the oil and gas industry.

Minnesota and Maine: Two other races are worth a quick mention: In Minnesota, challenger Al Franken is running a close race with incumbent Norm Coleman (R), and leads slightly by 2.2 points. Coleman’s environmental record isn’t bad, but Franken who calls for an “Apollo Project” in renewable energy, is endorsed by LCV. Also endorsed by LCV is incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine, who is comfortably ahead (15 points) of challenger Tom Allen (D). Collins often crosses over to vote with the Democratic majority on environmental and other issues and has a 100% LCV score the past 2 years.

Take action: So if you want to see good global warming laws passed by the next Congress, think about sending a contribution to one of the candidates in a toss-up race. And if you live in one of those states, get active and help out in the last 2 weeks if you haven’t already. You can help make a difference.

(Sources: League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Environment America, realclearpolitics.com)

In case you missed it, an earlier EarthlingAngst post shows why Obama is better than McCain for the fight against global warming.


And by the way, Environmental Defense has a cool timeline of progress lost on climate change during the Bush Administration.

Bay Area cities join to fight climate change

(Photo of Bay Bridge linking San Francisco and Oakland from Flickr and photographer Dikesh Joshi)

News Update: Look West, young man, for examples of pioneering work on global warming. Now three Northern California cities have joined forces to reduce their emissions by 2013. San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland have agreed to cooperate on cutting greenhouse gases, by boosting the number of hybrid and electric vehicles, diverting waste from landfills and increasing green jobs. They also plan to craft a common standard for green buildings and rooftop solar installations, decrease water consumption, provide incentives to cut the use of gasoline in transport and educate the public about climate change. The goals have been endorsed by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a coalition of 284 companies including PG&E, Apple and Google, as well as the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. (Source: ClimateWire)