Where will Earth’s climate go from here?

The pace of extreme weather events has remained remarkably high during 2011, giving rise to the question–is the “Global Weirding” of 2010 and 2011 the new normal? Has human-caused climate change destabilized the climate, bringing these extreme, unprecedented weather events? Any one of the extreme weather events of 2010 or 2011 could have occurred naturally sometime during the past 1,000 years. But it is highly improbable that the remarkable extreme weather events of 2010 and 2011 could have all happened in such a short period of time without some powerful climate-altering force at work. The best science we have right now maintains that human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases like CO2 are the most likely cause of such a climate-altering force.

Human-caused climate change has fundamentally altered the atmosphere by adding more heat and moisture. Observations confirm that global atmospheric water vapor has increased by about 4% since 1970, which is what theory says should have happened given the observed 0.5°C (0.9°F) warming of the planet’s oceans during the same period. Shifts of this magnitude are capable of significantly affecting the path and strength of the jet stream, behavior of the planet’s monsoons, and paths of rain and snow-bearing weather systems. For example, the average position of the jet stream retreated poleward 270 miles (435 km) during a 22-year period ending in 2001, in line with predictions from climate models.

A naturally extreme year, when embedded in such a changed atmosphere, is capable of causing dramatic, unprecedented extremes like we observed during 2010 and 2011. That’s the best theory I have to explain the extreme weather events of 2010 and 2011….  [T]he ever-increasing amounts of heat-trapping gases humans are emitting into the air puts tremendous pressure on the climate system to shift to a new, radically different, warmer state, and the extreme weather of 2010 – 2011 suggests that the transition is already well underway. A warmer planet has more energy to power stronger storms, hotter heat waves, more intense droughts, heavier flooding rains, and record glacier melt that will drive accelerating sea level rise. I expect that by 20 – 30 years from now, extreme weather years like we witnessed in 2010 will become the new normal.

Finally, I’ll leave you with a quote from Dr. Ricky Rood’s climate change blog, in his recent post, Changing the Conversation: Extreme Weather and Climate: “Given that greenhouse gases are well known to hold energy close to the Earth, those who deny a human-caused impact on weather need to pose a viable mechanism of how the Earth can hold in more energy and the weather not be changed. Think about it.”

That’s from the conclusion of a comprehensive must-read analysis by uber-meteorologist and former Hurricane Hunter Dr. Jeff Masters.  Masters has the most comprehensive review I’ve seen — with images and graphs — of the remarkable extreme weather of last year.

I am reposting the entire piece below.

Bear in mind as you read it that we have warmed only about 1°F in the past few decades.  If we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, we face 10°F warming this century (see here).   Who can even imagine what a 100-year or 500-year extreme event will be in the second half of the century? For some of the relevant scientific literature, see “Two seminal Nature papers join growing body of evidence that human emissions fuel extreme weather, flooding that harm humans and the environment.”

Read more

A number of readers asked us for a chart on the levelized cost of electricity of renewables versus fossil resources. Here’s a good one just released by the Institute for Local Self Reliance with data from Lazard, a Wall Street advisory firm that tracks energy data. The chart includes the cost of renewables with and without tax incentives.

The takeaway? While renewables have higher upfront capital costs per MW of capacity, the actual cost of electricity over time is very competitive.

These figures don’t even take into account the environmental and social “value” of renewable electricity.

According to a report released this week by three leading solar researchers, the value of solar PV is between 3 and 14 cents a kilowatt-hour for a utility. The contributing factors include: stabilizing the grid during peak times, requiring less infrastructure for transmitting electricity and, of course, the reduction in GHG emissions and particulates. The Institute for Local Self Reliance illustrates the findings:

Read more

Thad Miller, executive vice president of America’s largest independent power producer, Calpine, fully supports new air quality standards. Why? Because he knows that most companies in the power sector can meet them. As part of the Clean Energy Group — a progressive group of U.S. power providers that represent one fifth of all generation — Miller says that it’s possible to tighten environmental standards while making a profit, keeping rates low, and ensuring the stability of the electricity system.

In an interview with the lame-duck Fox News host Glenn Beck, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum claimed global warming is a hoax. Beck grinned as Santorum called for a “drill everywhere” policy and claimed that there is “no such thing as global warming”:

BECK: Oil?

SANTORUM: Drill. Drill everywhere.

BECK: Coal?

SANTORUM: Absolutely. Natural gas. We have huge stores. 263 years of oil at the current rate, almost 200 years of gas, and 300 years of coal.

BECK: What about global warming?

SANTORUM: There is no such thing as global warming. It is, in my opinion, there are hundreds of factors that cause the earth to warm and cool, and the trace gas – of which human participation in this trace gas – is . . .

BECK: This could seal the deal for me. Whatever, I got enough.

Watch it:

Earlier this month, Santorum told the other enforcer of conservative thought, Rush Limbaugh, that global warming is “junk science.”

(HT: Media Matters)

A round-up of climate and energy news. Please post other stories below.

One bipartisan commission came close to taxing carbon; could Congress?

Not every Republican agrees with the anti-tax sentiments of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who yesterday abandoned the fraying negotiations to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

Former Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) recently co-chaired a budget commission that seriously considered using a carbon tax to bring down the nation’s debt and long-term deficits. The panel was packed with high-profile budget experts from both parties, and the commission eventually chose a national sales tax to help pay down the country’s ballooning debt.

Read more

So your home is worth half of what it used to be, the stock market makes you jittery, and gold is far too expensive to buy. Don’t fret! There may still be something tangible in your life gaining value: Your used, fuel-efficient car.

Yes, experience says that an automobile is not an asset – most start declining in value as soon they’re driven off the lot. But with new demand for fuel-efficient automobiles, used “gas-sipping” cars are actually worth 30% more than they were six months ago, reports the New York Times:

Used cars over all are retaining a higher percentage of their original value than ever before, according to auto analysts who track prices. Compact cars that are one to five years old are worth, on average, about 30 percent more on the wholesale market now than just six months ago, the National Auto Auction Association reports.

“You’re not going to find a better return than that on anything,” said Jonathan Banks, executive auto analyst for the used-car guide published by the National Automobile Dealers Association.

Here are some specifics:

Read more

By Jessica Goad, Manager of Research and Outreach, Public Lands Project, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee spent Thursday morning learning that their four bills introduced to speed up permitting of renewable energy on public lands in reality would have very little effect on renewable energy development. Indeed, agency witnesses testified that the policies could have the opposite effect — creating more lawsuits and delaying projects.

As became clear during the hearing, the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service already have the authority to do what three of the bills propose — exempt projects with no environmental impact from the environmental review process. The key difference with the bills promoted by Republicans is that they completely exempt wind and geothermal testing facilities from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a law designed to minimize conflict with projects from the start. According to the government witnesses, this could lead to more delays in permitting. Bureau of Land Management Deputy Director Mike Pool explained bluntly that the GOP legislation would create “more lawsuits”:

I believe any action that would shortchange the NEPA process would result in more lawsuits.

Watch it:

Pool further noted in his testimony that the legislation could have “unintended consequences.” Because of this, the wind and solar energy industries did not come out in favor of the three bills that would affect them. While thanking Representative Kristi Noem (R-SD) for her leadership in introducing one of the bills, Chris Taylor, testifying on behalf of Element Power (a solar and wind company) and the American Wind Energy Association, stated that the problems his organization sees with permitting wind testing facilities “can be improved within the confines of NEPA.” In other words, the legislation is not needed.

As ten witnesses testified before the committee in two different oversight hearings a few weeks ago, consistent and reliable financing is the biggest roadblock to renewable energy development on public lands. Taylor of the American Wind Energy Association reiterated that point today, saying: “Far and away the biggest challenge facing the wind industry right now is the lack of stable federal policy support, namely long-term financial incentives and a demand-side policy like a clean or renewable electricity standard…it needs to be clear that any changes that are made to make it easier to site projects on public lands will be of limited use if projects aren’t able to be built because federal tax incentives…or because the lack of demand-side policies limit the market for renewable energy.”

Republicans killed off the best mechanism for long-term policy support for the renewable energy industry when they demonized climate legislation, which would have allowed the market to determine the most efficient mechanism for making desperately needed reductions in carbon pollution. They continue to slash clean energy programs and prop up the oil and coal industries with new pollution subsidies.

Transcript: Read more

There’s no way a bill to stymie EPA climate rules is getting past the White House, President Barack Obama’s top aide said [last] Thursday.

“No, we’re not going to allow any legislation that impedes the need to improve our health and safety,” Obama’s chief of staff Bill Daley said Thursday when asked whether the White House would consider legislation to block or delay EPA climate regulations.

This is a Politico Pro story (subs. req’d) from last week, and so only got limited coverage.  This is the strongest statement to date from the White House they will defend science-based standards to protect clean air, clean water, and a livable climate.

Here’s more:

Read more

Bob Perciasepe, the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has over 30 years of experience in natural resources management. As organizations have worked to protect those natural resources and public health, what kind of impact have smart regulations had? A significant decrease in pollution and a 200% increase in GDP.

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (TVMOB) is perhaps the most shameless purveyor of hate speech and anti-science disinformation in the world (see Monckton attacks those who embrace climate science as “Hitler youth” and fascists).  In advance of his trip to Australia, TVMOB  couldn’t resist smearing Prof. Ross Garnaut, the government’s chief climate-change adviser:

You may recall the astonishing point-by-point evisceration of Monckton put together by John Abraham, an engineering professor at St. Thomas University in St. Paul, MN.

What  follows is a piece Abraham published on TVMOB as part of The Conversation:

Read more