Well, that record cooling trend in January, which was solid evidence (to some) that human-caused global warming was at an end, melted away as fast as the summer ice in the Arctic. Not only did Feburary begin a frighteningly unsustainable warming trend for this year, it saw a record number of tornadoes.

Climate change is back, baby! In your face, delayer-1000s! And as Jon Stewart — or the Pope — might say, damn you, polluters! But where is the news coverage??? This is just more proof (as if we needed it) that the media is fundamentally conservative.

Let’s start with the temperature. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has their monthly global temperature dataset out through February 2008 (it starts in Jan 1880). January was only 0.12°C above the 1951-1980 mean (for that month) and a full 0.74°C colder than January 2007 (the warmest January record).

But February 2007 was 0.26°C above the monthly mean, and a mere 0.37°C colder than February 2008. The “legitimate science writer” David Appell explains the staggering implications (if we used the same reasoning as typical delayers):

… the world is warming up at 0.14°C/month, or 3°F per year, or a dramatic 30°F per decade! By 2018, Fairbanks Alaska will be like Atlanta was this year. Atlanta will be … well, like Hell….

More seriously, this February ripped the tornado record books to shred as if they had been caught in a giant whirlwind whose intensity had been amplifed by global warming. The country suffered through a stunning 232 tornadoes — almost triple the previous record of 1971, which saw a mere 83 tornadoes. (Reliable records go back to 1950.)

There is some recent research by NASA that “the most violent severe storms and tornadoes may become more common as Earth’s climate warms.” More interestingly, the famed blogging non-alarmist meteorologist Jeff Masters explains:

Read more

Okay, so the idea of calling the non-skeptical climate disinformers and deniers by the name Delayer-1000′s is not going to take the world by storm [Note to self: Duh!].

Still, I thought you might be interested to see how a back and forth might go, if some hypothetical well-informed delayer-1000 who worked at a hypothetical well-known conservative think tank sent you (and some bloggers and journalists) a hypothetical email explaining the value of the recent delayer-1000 conference:

Second, the conference showed (to those open-minded enough to actually come and listen) the reality that most so-called “skeptics” have been mischaracterized by climate-policy activists. Most (if not all) of the scientists gathered in Manhattan accept the fundamental science of non-enhanced GHG warming, and acknowledge that human GHG emissions have caused and will cause some amount of atmospheric warming, sea-level rise, and ocean acidification. The science debate is (and always has been) about how extensive anthropogenic warming is; whether it will be enhanced by water vapor; whether it will be negated by feedbacks; whether it is overwhelmed by non-anthropogenic forces at work in the climate system; whether climate projections have planning value; and whether the claimed benefits of various climate policies can be validated based on the underlying science of climate change.

Third, the conference was a morale booster for those who suspect that climate change is being exaggerated in order to ram through a political agenda that is basically socialism dressed up as climate policy, and that is being promoted through scare tactics. Such people face an uphill battle because the eco-socialist types have managed to con much of the political classes and mainstream media into the insane belief that their favored policies are the only possible responses to climate change, as endorsed by some authoritarian “big science” that must be obeyed and never questioned. There is a value in pep-rallies - that’s why people hold them.

Just as an aside, this email shows 1) Most of the delayers have moved beyond being pure deniers and 2) what they really hate is the solution — “eco-socialism” (!) — much more than anything else. Now someone like me might reply:

A pep rally for people who apparently want CO2 concentrations to hit 1000 ppm. What a concept!

I would be interested to know your answer to the most important climate question — if you were running national and global climate policy, what level of global CO2 concentrations would be your goal and how would you achieve it?

If you have no answer, or propose no serious policies other than a continuation of business as usual — then I am going to put you down as a “1000 ppm’er” or a Delayer1000 — I’m still working out the kinks for my new naming system….

If I have misunderstood you, if you have a plan for keeping annual carbon emissions this century from coming close to averaging 11 GtC/yr, a plan that does not involve either a deus ex machina or all those hated “socialistic” policies that historically are the only ones that have ever succeeded at achieving serious reductions in a widespread pollutant, then I am all ears….

By the way, the feedback ship sailed a few years ago, and while you may still be at the dock waving, the rest of us know that far from there being any chance that feedbacks could negate the impact of anthropogenic emissions — which would be contrary to all the paleoclimate data in any case — all of the recent observational evidence and scientific analysis makes clear that there are multiple amplifying feedbacks already at work….

Yes, I’m aware this is pointless. But I’m trying out my new naming system, and I wanted some reaction from a geniune delayer-1000. Here is that reaction:

Read more

The Economist has published a very readable historian/explanation of batteries, especially ones suitable for all electric cars, “In search of the perfect battery.” In particular, it has a very extensive discussion of lithium-ion batteries, which will almost certainly be the core battery for most electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids. I highly recommend the piece, since electricity is the transportation fuel of the near- and far-future.

[Hat tip to my brother Dave for sending this to me.]

General Electric bought a wind power company and a solar power company a while ago, and those two clean energy sectors have been soaring. Now GE has announced it is backing a Norwegian electric car manufacturer, TH!NK, which just unveiled a five-seat crossover concept car, the Ox, in Geneva:

[Note to TH!NK: Love the company's name, but not the car's. This thing goes 0 to 60 in under 8.5 seconds. It ain't an Ox.]

And GE announced it has invested in everybody’s darling lithium-ion battery company, A123, which will be supplying batteries to TH!NK.

GE is now A123′s largest cash investor, having put more than US $20 million into the company. In addition, GE disclosed it has invested US $4 million in Think Global, the Norwegian holding company that makes the electric cars.

So they haven’t bet the bank — but this money is about one quarter of the total investment in energy companies made by GE Energy Financial Services in the past 18 months. GE Global Research is also aggressively pursuing transportation electrification technologies, with DOE and other federal support:

GE’s research includes a US $5.6 million US Energy Department contract to develop smaller, lower cost, higher performing hybrid drivetrain motors for hybrid electric vehicles. In addition, GE is working on a US $1.2 million project to develop advanced high temperature, high energy density capacitors.

Mark Little, Senior Vice President and Director of GE Global Research, explains that this is really part of a very old strategy by the company [photo of Edison with electric car]:

“Our researchers are improving energy storage and conversion technology as the key enabler of our founder Thomas Edison’s vision of electricity as a viable propulsion system for vehicles, ranging from automobiles to industrial vehicles and locomotives.”

Everything old is new again. I wouldn’t bet against GE this time.

Related Posts

• This just in: Hydrogen fuel cell cars are still dead
• Plug-in hybrids and electric cars — a core climate solution, nationally and globally
• Financial Times on Th!nk electric
• Yes, EV batteries are durable!

Nature, one of the most respected journals of Science, has an editorial on the U.S. EPA. It begins,

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is fast losing the few shreds of credibility it has left. The Bush administration has always shown more zeal in protecting business interests than the environment. But the agency’s current administrator, Stephen Johnson, a veteran EPA toxicologist who was promoted to the top slot in 2005, has done so with reckless disregard for law, science or the agency’s own rules — or, it seems, the anguished protests of his own subordinates.

Citing a new incident, not well-covered in the traditional media (there was an Associated Press story, but it was apparently not deemed newsworthy by most editors), it goes on to say:

The second example came on 29 February, in the form of a joint letter to Johnson from the four labour unions representing most of the EPA’s professional staff. Listing examples of alleged bad faith by Johnson, the unions essentially refused to work with him until he cleans up his act. Among the complaints was an assertion that he repeatedly ignored the EPA’s official Principles of Scientific Integrity, citing “fluoride drinking water standards, organophosphate pesticide registration, control of mercury emissions from power plants” — and the waiver refusal.

Give the Nature EPA editorial and the AP story a read.

– Earl K.