According to new research from MIT, the most recent global climate report fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends….

After comparing IPCC models with actual data, [lead author Pierre] Rampal and his collaborators concluded that the forecasts were significantly off: Arctic sea ice is thinning, on average, four times faster than the models say, and it’s drifting twice as quickly.

I’m technically on vacation, so I don’t have time to respond to every misleading claim or inadequate study.

But it’s very safe to say that two-dimensional analyses of sea ice trends — ones that don’t model ice thickness and hence ice volume — are going to miss crucial feedbacks and dynamic changes.  That is the central point of this new MIT study, which will be stunning only to those who don’t follow either this blog or the recent scientific literature.

Recent statements that we are seeing an “Arctic Death Spiral” focused on volume.  In the words of National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) director Mark Serreze, who is most associated with that phrase:

Serreze (9/10): “There are claims coming from some communities that the Arctic sea ice is recovering, is getting thicker again. That’s simply not the case.  It’s continuing down in a death spiral.  Every bit of evidence we have says the ice is thinning.  That means there’s less energy needed to melt it out than there used to be.”

Serreze (7/11):  “The extent [of the ice cover] is going down, but it is also thinning. So a weather pattern that formerly would melt some ice, now gets rid of much more. There will be ups and downs, but we are on track to see an ice-free summer by 2030. It is an overall downward spiral.“

This new study, “IPCC climate models do not capture Arctic sea ice drift acceleration: Consequences in terms of projected sea ice thinning and decline,” (subs. req’d)  adds to our understanding of  how the two-dimensional models go astray.  Here’s an extended excerpt from the news release:

Read more

GOP Presidential front runner Mitt Romney offered his view of why corporations should not pay higher taxes at a damaging campaign stop in Iowa.  His remarks open a window into his corporatist, pollutocrat worldview.  As Think Progress Justice noted:

Audience members responded angrily to his plans, and Romney frequently responded belligerently to their anger. In one of the most contentious exchanges, Romney defended his belief that we “should consider a higher retirement age” for Social Security and Medicare to preserve tax breaks for corporations:

Read more

By Tom Kenworthy, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

An outside panel of advisers to the Department of Energy yesterday recommended a suite of measures to better protect the public’s health and safety from adverse environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells in shale formations. The report strikes the right balance between protecting public safety and accessing a more clean and abundant domestic source of energy. But there are several additional steps the government needs to take. The report, prepared for Energy Secretary Steven Chu, calls for:

- More effective controls of air pollution associated with gas development
- Better systems for guarding against water contamination
- A definitive assessment of the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas production
- The creation of a federal database to allow the public to easily access information about natural gas production including the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking

This report by a shale gas subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board comes against a backdrop of a massive increase in the production of natural gas from shale formations stretching from Pennsylvania to Texas, and mounting public concern over fracking and its possible pollution of public water supplies, air quality, and communities sitting above the gas deposits. The report explicitly recognizes that unless the environmental concerns are addressed, the growth of the shale gas industry could be threatened, along with its economic benefits and potential for aiding the fight against climate change by reducing the use of more polluting fuels for electricity generation and transportation:

The public deserves assurance that the full economic, environmental and energy security benefits of shale gas development will be realized without sacrificing public health, environmental protection and safety.

The subcommittee’s report contains strong recommendations that the natural gas industry voluntarily adopt best practices and continually improve its environmental and safety performance, but the panel also called for more aggressive federal and state oversight of the industry. “Effective action requires both strong regulation and a shale gas industry in which all participating companies are committed to continuous improvement,” the report states, while noting that industry’s efforts are “a complement to, not a substitute for, strong regulation and effective enforcement.” Stronger regulation, the report said, can be funded through fees, royalties, and taxes paid by industry.

The publication of the report also is important simply for happening so quickly. President Obama in March directed Secretary Chu to convene the panel, and the secretary in turn gave the seven members 90 days to advise him on “immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of fracturing.” Chaired by John Deutch, who served in senior Energy and Defense Department positions and as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the panel was criticized by environmental activists and scientists for having close financial ties to the energy industry. Deutch, for example, is a member of the board of Cheniere Energy Inc., a Houston-based liquefied-natural-gas storage and trading company, and a former director of Schlumberger Ltd., a leading hydraulic fracturing company. He is also a trustee of the Center for American Progress. Congressional Republicans, in contrast, complained that the panel did not have enough industry representation.

Undeterred, the panel moved quickly, and with good reason. Exploitation of abundant U.S. shale gas resources has accelerated rapidly in recent years, enabled by vast improvements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques. Fracking is a process that involves high-pressure pumping of large volumes of water combined with sand and chemicals to fracture underground rock formations and release gas deposits. A decade ago, shale gas represented less than 2 percent of U.S. gas production, according to the panel’s report, but is now 30 percent. New estimates of U.S. reserves of gas now predict that a supply of more than a century is possible.

Because natural gas is generally thought to produce less carbon pollution than coal or oil, it is often viewed as a bridge fuel to a lower carbon future. But a recent study casts some doubt on that assumption. Because of that uncertainty, the Center for American Progress called for an authoritative government study of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of natural gas in relation to other fuels. The Department of Energy panel that released yesterday’s report endorsed that effort.

The DOE panel also concurred with a number of other Center for American Progress recommendations, including more public disclosure of releases of toxic emissions, cradle-to-grave wastewater monitoring, and controls on fugitive methane releases. Specifically, the panel’s recommendations include:

- Rigorous standards for controlling emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases into the air during all phases of natural gas drilling and production
- Better tracking and disposal of wastewater that is produced during hydraulic fracturing
- Baseline testing of domestic water wells prior to drilling so it is easier to determine if fracking has contaminated water supplies
- Public disclosure in an online searchable database of the chemicals used in fracking, though with an exception “for genuinely proprietary information”
- Adopting best practices for well construction, including casing, cementing, and pressure management, and better well-inspection regimes
- Eliminating the use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids
- Better communication and coordination between state and federal regulators
- More federal funding for research and development on ways to improve the environmental performance of natural gas development
- Greater efforts at all levels of government to limit the cumulative impacts of drilling on lands, wildlife, and communities

These are important steps to take toward ensuring the emerging shift to a greater reliance on natural gas is done in a prudent way that protects our health and safety. It is imperative that our nation continues to move away from its heavy reliance on coal. Even if the greenhouse benefits of natural gas turn out to be less than now assumed, gas is preferable because it produces fewer other pollutants compared to coal.

The panel’s emphasis on tougher government oversight and standards, and its push for greater industry transparency and best practices, are important. A study by the Environmental Protection Agency that is now underway may shed some more needed light on what is needed to guarantee that fracking is done safely and responsibly, and should serve as a basis for ending some of the oil and gas industry’s exemptions from the nation’s bedrock environmental laws.

Most people don’t realize that we have a lot of hydropower potential left in this country — particularly small hydro.

Amidst all the talk about increasing offshore drilling in the arctic, permitting massive renewable energy projects in remote areas, and building out expensive transmission lines around the country, we often forget about the simple things.

A few years back, I wrote an article asking if the U.S. was on the verge of a small hydropower boom. I’m sad to say that despite the myriad compelling reasons for developing small hydro projects around this country, we’re still in the same place we were when I wrote that story.

Why? Because we have a terrible regulatory framework in place.

A 2006 study put together by the Idaho National Laboratory found that we could feasibly develop up to 30,000 MW of small and “low-power” hydro projects (between 10 kilowatts and 30 megawatts) around the country. All of those projects could be run-of-river — meaning they don’t require any damming — or could be built on existing dams.

There are over 81,000 dams around the U.S. and only 2,400 of them have any electrical generating capacity. Many of the power-less 78,600 dams are close to existing infrastructure, making it easier to build and maintain a project compared with a centralized wind or solar farm located far away from where the electricity is used.

So while the government has focused heavily on streamlined permitting for centralized, large-scale renewable energy projects, almost nothing has been done for small hydro.

Due to regulatory morass, the U.S. is not a good place for small hydro companies to do business. In order to build even the smallest facilities, a developer must go through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, State Environmental Departments, State Historic Preservation Departments, and many more. Each of these agencies is just doing their job — but the cumulative impact weighs down small hydro and makes projects prohibitively expensive.

“The regulatory environment is not friendly at all. It’s incredibly difficult and expensive to build these facilities,” explains Lori Barg, CEO of Community Hydro, a developer based in Vermont. “It’s absurd, really.”

Read more

Our guest blogger is Noreen Nielsen, Energy Communications Director, Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Families in Iowa and across the country believe that every child has the right to be born and grow up without suffering from the devastating effects that toxic air pollutants cause and worsen such as respiratory disease, higher cancer risks and learning and developmental disorders. Every family has the right to expect clean air, free of the elevated heart and lung disease risks that air pollution poses.

However, Republican presidential candidates are proposing to weaken or block these common-sense updates to the Clean Air Act, which has successfully protected air quality for more than four decades – something that would be devastating to Iowa families.

GOP REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES ATTACK THE EPA

— Michele Bachmann: EPA Should Be Renamed the Job Killing Organization of America. On June 13, 2011, during a debate hosted by CNN, Bachmann stated, “Every time the liberals get into office, they pass an omnibus bill of big spending projects. What we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills, but it’s the repeal bill that will get a job killing regulations. And I would begin with the EPA, because there is no other agency like the EPA. It should really be renamed the job-killing organization of America.”

— Newt Gingrich: Abolish the EPA. While giving a speech to the conservative CPAC conference early this year, Gingrich offered harsh words when discussing the EPA, calling it a “fundamental threat to freedom in this country.” He went on to say, “I want to replace, not reform EPA, because EPA is made up of self-selected bureaucrats who are anti-American jobs, anti-American business, anti-state government, anti-local control, and I don’t think you can reeducate them.”

— Tim Pawlenty: We Need Less EPA Monitoring of Our Economy. In remarks on June 7, 2011, Pawlenty stated that “[W]e don’t need the unelected officials at EPA to do what our elected officials in Congress have rejected. We need less EPA monitoring of our economy. And more monitoring of EPA’s effects on our freedom.”

— Rick Perry: EPA Illustrates How Washington Is Destroying Individuals Ability to Make Their Own Economic Decisions. In his book, Fed Up!, Perry writes, “Our dispute with the EPA in particular illustrates how Washington’s command-and-control environmental bureaucracy is destroying federalism and individuals’ ability to make their own economic decisions.”

— Mitt Romney: Against EPA Regulation of Carbon Emissions. In response to a question on EPA’s regulation of air quality standards, Romney stated that “Do I support the EPA? In much of its mission yes, but in some of its mission no. The EPA getting into carbon footprints, and… I think we may have made a mistake, we have made a mistake is what I believe, in saying that the EPA should regulate carbon emissions. I don’t think that was the intent of the original legislation, and I don’t think carbon is a pollutant in the sense of harming our bodies. We can agree to disagree … My view is that the EPA getting into carbon and regulating carbon has gone beyond the original intent of the legislation.”

— Herman Cain: Put Oil And Coal CEOs In Charge Of EPA Regulations. During a campaign stop in Iowa earlier this summer, Herman Cain said that, as president, he would create a special commission to remove environmental and energy regulations at the EPA that would be stacked with oil and gas heads. He is also on the record saying that eliminating the program entirely also “would be an option.”

— Ron Paul: No need for the EPA. In an interview with Grist, Paul said he saw no need for it, continuing on to say, “The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it’s a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections.”

— Jon Huntsman: New Environmental Regulations Should Be Low Priority. Though Huntsman has one of the most pro-environmental records of the 2012 GOP presidential gang, he has said that “until the economy improves, new environmental regulations should be a low priority.”

Read more

— Chris Mooney, in a DeSmogBlog cross-post

A few months back, those who care about accurate climate science and energy education in high school classes registered a minor victory. Under fire from outlets like The New York Times, the education publishing behemoth Scholastic (of Clifford the Big Red Dog and Harry Potter fame) pulled an energy curriculum sponsored by the American Coal Foundation, which gave a nice PR sheen to coal without bothering to cover, uh, the whole environmental angle. The curriculum had reportedly already been mailed to 66,000 classrooms by the time it got yanked.

When it comes to undermining accurate and responsible climate and energy education at the high school level, Scholastic may have been the most prominent transgressor. But precisely because it is a massive and respected educational publisher, and actually cares what The New York Times thinks, it was also the most moderate and easy to reason with.

Although it’s hard to find online now, I’ve reviewed the offending coal curriculum, entitled “The United States of Energy.” In my view, it didn’t even contain any obvious falsehoods—except for errors of omission. It was more a case of subtle greenwashing.

What’s currently seeping into classrooms across the country is far, far worse—more ideological, and more difficult to stop. We’re talking about outright climate denial being fed to students—and accurate climate science teaching being attacked by aggressive Tea Party-style ideologues.

Science magazine just released a report on the state of affairs out there in this place called America, and it’s ugly. From the piece:

– Rob Painting, in a Skeptical Science cross-post

The ongoing difficulty of accurately measuring the Earth’s ocean heat content has led to premature “skeptic” claims about ocean cooling. A recent paper Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) put the kibosh on ocean cooling claims. They find that from 2005 to 2010 the global oceans (10 to 1500 metres down) have continued to warm, although they caution that their result is based on the assumption that there are no more systematic errors in the data gathered from ARGO floats which measure ocean heat.

The more (data), the merrier

The ARGO float network began rollout in 2000, but prior to 2005 there wasn’t sufficent global coverage, and because of this Von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011) start their analysis from 2005 onwards. The authors found that only after November 2007 (when ARGO was 100% complete) is the ARGO network sufficiently robust to give accurate short-term trends of what they term ‘global ocean indicators’. This being steric sea level changes (sea level rise from thermal expansion as the oceans warm), heat content, and ocean salinity. This is probably best illustrated in the figure below, where the authors apply their method of analysis to the satellite sea surface height (SSH) data (AVISO):

Read more

A committee organized by the Department of Energy to investigate the implications of the boom in natural gas fracking has raised major concerns about the practice. The seven-member panel, of which six have financial ties to the natural gas and oil industry, said that the lifecycle carbon footprint of shale gas needs investigation and that all fracking fluids should be disclosed. Legislation to restore frack fluid disclosure has been under major attack from the natural gas industry.

The panel has been criticized by top scientists in the field for its ties to the oil and natural gas industry. In a letter to Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, scientists argued that the panel should be reconstructed without such financial conflicts:

As scientists from 22 universities and institutions in 13 states, we are writing to express our concern over the lack of impartiality on the Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board that is studying ways to make hydraulic fracturing safer. We urge you to modify the panel’s membership so that the panel can make recommendations on hydraulic fracturing that are unbiased and scientifically sound.

In our work, we believe in reducing individual biases in evaluating the merits of scientific or technological ideas. The current panel does not meet this standard. Six of the seven members have current financial ties to the natural gas and oil industry. These include: chairman John Deutch, Stephen Holditch, Kathleen McGinty, Susan Tierney, Daniel Yergin and Mark Zoback. These conflicts of interest make it appear that the subcommittee is designed to serve industry at taxpayer expense rather than serving President Obama and the public with credible advice.

The panel’s report on environmental guidelines certainly does read like a natural gas public relations document at times, praising natural gas as a “cornerstone of the U.S. economy” that provides “lower prices, domestic jobs, and the prospect of enhanced national security.” However, it is possible that the panel’s industry tries will mean its environmental recommendations will be taken seriously. At Climate Progress, Stephen Lacey explains that recommendations include the elimination of diesel fuel as a fracking fluid, better water-recycling methods, increased air-quality standards to lower on-site emissions, and more R&D to develop “green” fracking mixtures.

A group of experts brought together by the Department of Energy is calling for more research into the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from hydraulic fracturing, a drilling technique that has caused explosive growth in the natural gas industry.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, pumps water, sand and chemicals underneath shale formations to force out trapped gas. It allows companies to access massive reserves of gas that were formerly unreachable. But drilling operations also leak large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which calls into question claims that natural gas is “clean.”

One recent peer-reviewed study suggested that natural gas is actually dirtier than coal when factoring in methane leakage at drilling operations. Other studies have found just the opposite. So which is it?

A panel convened by the Department of Energy weighed in on the matter this morning. The seven-member panel released a report of environmental guidelines for the natural gas industry, with one of the main recommendations being more study of the “cradle-to-grave” emissions profile of natural gas:

There have been relatively few analyses done of the question of the greenhouse gas footprint over the entire fuel-cycle of natural gas production, delivery and use, and little data are available that bear on the question. A recent peer- reviewed article reaches a pessimistic conclusion about the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas production and use – a conclusion not widely accepted. DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory has given an alternative analysis. Work has also been done for electric power, where natural gas is anticipated increasingly to substitute for coal generation, reaching a more favorable conclusion that natural gas results in about one-half the equivalent carbon dioxide emissions.

These data will help answer key policy questions such as the time scale on which natural gas fuel switching strategies would produce real climate benefits through the full fuel cycle and the level of methane emission reductions that may be necessary to ensure such climate benefits are meaningful.

Methane emissions from shale gas drilling, production, gas processing, transmission and storage are of particular concern because methane is a potent greenhouse gas: 25 to 72 times greater warming potential than carbon dioxide on 100-year and 20-year time scales respectively. Currently, there is great uncertainty about the scale of methane emissions.

In January, the Department of Energy set up a committee to examine the full range of environmental impacts of fracking. Climate Progress editor Joe Romm testified to the members, urging them to study the climate issue closely:

Read more

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

Report details 2,000 unhealthy air alerts in 2011

You may have thought bad air pollution was on the way out, but not so. A report from the Natural Resources Defense Council counts more than 2,000 code orange alerts in U.S. communities and national parks from Jan. 1 to early August.

Code orange means the air’s too unhealthy for people with lung disease, older adults and children. NRDC, a pro-environmental advocacy group, is hoping the Environmental Protection Agency will consider this as they prepare to release new clean air standards.

Read more