Nothing occupies global warming deniers more than trying to prove the U.S. temperature record — a tiny portion of the global temperature record — is not reliable.  Now NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center has issued an excellent Q&A, “Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable?” that should settle that question for any objective observer.

The NCDC paper proves we should all be delighted that deniers like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre spend so much time on this:  It is clearly a fruitless effort that consumes time which they might otherwise spend spinning out more potent disinformation.

Consider this definitive NCDC graph comparing the U.S. temperature record since 1950 “using 1221 stations in NOAA’s Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)” [red line] with “the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best” [purple line].

No discernible difference!

Imagine all the effort by Watts and his cohorts at surfacestations.org and WattsUpWithThat have expended examining some 70% of the 1221 stations around the country — and all they ended up proving is that the best stations give the exact same output as all the rest of the stations!

NCDC explains exactly what this chart means:

Read more

Our guest blogger is Tom Kenworthy, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Farmers and those in the agriculture economy have a lot to lose if the trends in billion-dollar weather disasters continue — particularly when it comes to drought and water shortages, as recent news indicates. “Central and South Texas are in the midst of an epic drought that has sapped soils of their moisture, dried up stock ponds and turned cornfields from green to beige.” California’s “Central Valley farmers will receive an additional 100,000 acre-feet as part of a water loan to deal with the three-year drought plaguing the state.” As the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee begins hearing testimony this week on climate change legislation, “Billion Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters” — a catalog of 90 costly weather-related disasters dating back to 1980 assembled by the National Climatic Data Center — is a good place to start when considering the costs of inaction on global warming:

– In 2007, a severe drought with extreme heat across the Great Plains and the East brought some $5 billion in damages and costs. Wildfires in the West that same year cost more than $1 billion.

– In 2006, widespread drought affected the Great Plains, the south, and the far west, costing about $6 billion.

– In 2002, a broad drought cost $10 billion, affecting large parts of 30 states from the West to the Great Plains and much of the East. Western wildfires associated with the drought cost $2 billion.

– In 2000, a drought and heat wave centered on the south central and southeastern United States caused 140 deaths and cost $4 billion.

– In 1999, An eastern drought and heat wave brought “extensive agricultural losses” of more than $1 billion and cost 502 lives.

– In 1998, “Very severe losses to agriculture and related industries” accompanied a drought affecting the central and eastern U.S. with estimated costs of $40 billion and 5,000 to 10,000 deaths.

The House’s narrow approval of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 on June 26 came only after House leaders satisfied some of the concerns of farm state lawmakers. Senators, too, will be sensitive to those interests, so it is critical they understand some of the stakes for agriculture if Congress fails to pass comprehensive clean-energy jobs and climate legislation.

Drought and changes in water supply will be one of the main challenges. Over the last half century, the recently released government report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States” says, droughts associated with rising temperatures have become more frequent in much of the Southeast and Western regions of the country. That trend is expected to continue. “In the future, droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe,” particularly in the Southwest, according to the report.

Water shortages will likely affect a whole range of critical economic sectors, from limiting electricity production by nuclear and coal-fired power plants that have high water demands to increasing shipping costs on the Great Lakes and Mississippi River — as happened in 1988 when a drought stranded 4,000 barges on America’s most important commercial waterway. Drier conditions in the West will also increase the extent and cost of wildfires, which have already soared in the last decade.

These events and their impacts are not abstractions. They are costly, disruptive, and affect millions of Americans, including many who make their living raising food and livestock. Few lobbyists for these interests will mention these costly impacts to our already challenged rural economies.

Senators have a responsibility to protect farmers from more and worse droughts even if the farmers’ hired guns won’t.

Read more at the Center for American Progress, and view a map of past and projected droughts at Science Progress.

Yet another reason why cap-and-trade is likely to achieve the emissions reductions deeper and faster than people project.

U.S. power plant emissions fall as regulation looms

U.S. power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide dropped sharply in the first half of the year as the electricity industry prepared for tighter regulation in 2010, Genscape said Monday.

Sulfur dioxide emissions were down 24 percent compared to the first half of 2008, much more than would be expected due to the recession and lower electricity demand, the power industry data provider said in its quarterly review of energy trends.

“The industry is clearly going through a dress rehearsal for the implementation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in 2010, and judging by allowance prices as well as the fundamental data, it is a stellar performance,” Genscape said.

Coral Reefs Exposed To Imminent Destruction From Climate Change

Read more

As expected, dirty energy lobbyist-turned-Governor Haley Barbour never once mentioned the devastation his “drill, baby, drill” energy policy would cause (see “Mississippi burning “” and flooding: Haley Barbour to be remembered as man who gave his state 90°F temps 5 months a year plus countless Katrinas?“).  Masochists can read his full Senate testimony here, and I’ll address his bizarre “scary” story about China at the end.

First, though, in the Q&A, Barbour claimed McKinsey found that a cap-and-trade bill would raise electricity rates $0.05 to $0.15 per kWh.  Not!

In fact, Mckinsey has done many analyses showing that measures needed to stabilize emissions at 450 ppm have a net cost near zero (see here).  McKinsey’s recent detailed analysis of “Reducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions:  How Much at What Cost?” concluded:

The United States could reduce GHG emissions in 2030 by 3.0 to 4.5 gigatons of CO₂e using tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies. These reductions would involve pursuing a wide array of abatement options with marginal costs less than $50 per ton, with the average net cost to the economy being far lower if the nation can capture sizable gains from energy efficiency.

A CO2 allowance price below $50/ton in 2030 would raise electricity rates well below the five cents a kilowatt hour Barbour claims, probably under two cents a kilowatt hour — and of course the rise in average rates over the next decade would be well under one cent a kilowatt hour.

But the climate and clean energy bill does have the kind of energy efficiency push McKinsey models (see The triumph of energy efficiency: Waxman-Markey could save $3,900 per household and create 650,000 jobs by 2030).  Thus, the effect on overall consumer electricity bills will be quite small, as EPA found (see “New EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey: Consumer electric bills 7% lower in 2020 thanks to efficiency“).

Now let me turn to the bizarre — albeit original — Halloween fantasy that Barbour offers in his written testimony to scare the public:

Read more

The National Snow and Ice Data Center has a July 6 update on Arctic ice melt:

The Arctic is now in the midst of the summer melt season. Through most of June, ice extent tracked below the 1979 to 2000 average, and slightly above the levels recorded during June 2007. Warm temperatures and southerly winds led to quickly declining ice concentration in some regions, such as the Laptev Sea….

Compared to previous Junes, ice extent in June 2009 was extremely close to the last two years, falling within 30,000 square kilometers (12,000 square miles) of the June extent in 2007 and 2008. The long-term trend indicates a decline of 3.3% per decade, an average of 40,100 square kilometers (15,500 square miles) of ice per year.

Will we see a record minimum this year?

Read more

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is always worth listening to and he has become a big supporter of concentrated solar power.

Udall (D-NM) notes this bill would help nuclear power contrary to what the other side says:  “When you put a price on carbon you are helping nuclear power.”

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) — noted news report that Toyota has some 2000 patents on hybrids, which is using to maintain its leadership position.  He wants this bill because “I want to see us at the front of the parade” on clean energy

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) kept his powder dry, but spoke on the importance of taking action on climate and is concerned about jobs in his coal-producing state [although it doesn't generate very many jobs in PA anymore].

Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ), I believe, pointed out that the GOP members are all about “no, no, no.”

Sen. Crapo (R-ID) responded by saying that when the Republicans were in charge, they tried to pass energy bills and accused the Dems of being against them.

But Sen. Boxer (D-CA) pointed out that in fact the Senate passed energy bills in 2005, 2006, and 2007, so she hopes (fruitlessly, I’m afraid) that the R’s will work together with the D’s on this bill, as the D’s did the R’s.

Sen. Carper (D-DE) is a believer in climate action and all forms low carbon energy, as his remarks made clear.  In particular he gets energy efficiency, noting “the cleanest most affordable energy, is the energy we never use.”

I agree on the importance of nuclear power, but it’s NOT cheap.”

But while he understands that nuclear is “not cheap,” I’m sure he will be among those pushing for a nuclear title in the final bill, as he did in the stimulus (see “Can Obama stop the nuclear bomb in the Senate stimulus plan?“

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is somewhat bizarrely called a Senate “fence-sitter” by the E&E News analysis (which I’ll blog on shortly).

If you’re watching the Senate climate hearing, then you just heard the most uninformed endorsement of nuclear power ever offered in the U.S. Senate.

One can say many things about 100 new nuclear power plants as a climate solution, but it isn’t “the cheap clean energy solution”:

• GOP wants 100 new nukes by 2030 while “Areva has acknowledged that the cost of a new reactor today would be as much as 6 billion euros, or $8 billion, double the price offered to the Finns.”
• Turkey’s only bidder for first nuclear plant offers a price of 21 cents per kilowatt-hour
• What do you get when you buy a nuke? You get a lot of delays and rate increases”¦.
• Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power
• Nuclear power, Part 2: The price is not right

Sadly, I expect some sort of nuclear energy title will be required to get a climate bill through the Senate.  The only “good news” is that it will fall more into the category of “taxpayer money flushed down the toilet” than “needless weakening of an already too-weak bill.”

This guide, first published here, dispels 14 clean-energy myths and provides information about the American Clean Energy and Security Act aka Waxman-Markey.  See also “Everything you wanted to know about Waxman-Markey allocations PLUS why the allocations do not undermine energy efficiency efforts” and “Why clean energy and unconventional natural gas makes the 2020 Waxman-Markey target so damn easy and cheap to meet.”

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, would create jobs, reduce oil dependence, cut global warming pollution, and increase American competitiveness. It is a fragile compromise with support from utilities, energy companies, labor unions, and environmentalists. Despite its broad appeal conservative opponents continue to repeat factual misstatements, half truths, and outright howlers. This study guide debunks these myths and provides the facts.

Create jobs

Read more

And that means you can watch it online here.

Full Environment and Public Works Committee hearing entitled, “Moving America toward a Clean Energy Economy and Reducing Global Warming Pollution: Legislative Tools.”  Details here.