What triggered the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) about 55 million years ago, which saw the fastest period of warming documented in Earth’s geological history? The PETM is associated with a rapid rise in greenhouse gases, particularly methane — but the big question is where did the methane come from?

The most common answer has been the ocean (methane hydrates) but new research in Nature, (subs. req’d) casts doubt on the ocean theory, finding chemical evidence instead that the methane came from terrestrial sources, bogs, which were themselves stimulated by rising temperatures — an amplifying feedback. The lead author says:

“A lot of temperate and polar wetlands are going to be wetter, and of course warmer as well [because of current climate change]. That implies a switch to more anaerobic conditions which are more likely to release methane. That’s what’s predicted, and that would be a positive feedback – and we have evidence now that this is what happened.”

Indeed, research from last year found “thawing Siberian bogs are releasing more of the greenhouse gas methane than previously believed.” Why should we care about the source of the PETM?

Read more

The renewable energy future – LA Times. “As Los Angeles creaks through its driest year on record and nervously awaits its next explosive wildfire, many wonder if global warming is already taking a toll.” Duh. Anyway, a pretty good article on the prospects for renewables in California.

Evidence of global warming surrounds a skeptic – Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Another good dissing of Lomborg, focusing on forest loss in the West. No matter what Steve says, I say you can’t have too many!

Forest nations want billions for not logging – The Sydney Morning Herald. A multibillion-dollar plan to protect forests and reduce global warming is to be backed by an alliance of nations that are home to more than 80 per cent of the world’s tropical rainforest.

A “speculative 15,000 square foot mansion in Manalapan, Fla., will be the first home of its size to be certified green by the U.S. Green Building Council and the Florida Green Building Council.”

Is that a good idea for USGBC? That’s my question to you. Obviously people are going to build big homes–and it is better if they have green features. But should USGBC single out such “eco-mansions” for positive recognition?

On the big side, the mansion has:

… eight bedrooms, 11 bathrooms, two elevators, two laundry rooms, two wine cellars (one for red, one white), a movie theater and guesthouse.

On the green side, the mansion has a:

Read more

If you thought Greenspan was confused about energy (see Part I), his discussion of global warming in The Age of Turbulence is downright stupefying. He opens well:

There can be very little doubt that global warming is real and man-made. (p. 454)

But the next sentence is (I kid you not)

We may have to rename Glacier National Park when its glaciers disappear, in what now looks to be 2030, according to park scientists.

That’s what all the fuss is about — we’ll have to rename one of our national parks in 23 years. This is the Lomborg view. The movie version might be called A “Minor Inconvenience” — That’s Our Truth.

Greenspan then immediately launches into an extended discussion trashing cap-and-trade systems, ultimately claiming:

There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy. Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained.

Unless of course jobs are created in the clean energy industry and people can balance the higher cost of energy with a more efficient use of it, as California has done. That Greenspan does not like a high price for CO2 is not surprising — how much is it really worth to avoid renaming Glacier National Park, anyway? What is stunning is that he makes this particular argument against carbon prices in the very same chapter he calls for a $3 a gallon gasoline tax!

The gas tax is both necessary and good: “we need significantly higher gasoline prices to wean us off gasoline-powered motor vehicles…. The expectation of higher gasoline prices through taxes … would galvanize large technological breakthroughs in the production of ethanol” especially cellulosic ethanol from biomass. “Alternatively, if ethanol fails and gasoline prices are high enough, plug-in hybrids will significantly displace petroleum consumption over time.” (p. 461) Dr. Greenspan — techno-optimist!

But just 6 pages earlier, his alter ego, techno-pessimist Mr. Alan, was calling a carbon price both unnecessary and evil:

Read more