Dr. Jeff Masters:  An unprecedented ozone hole opened in the Arctic during 2011, researchers reported this week in the journal Nature….  We know that an 11% increase in UV-B light can cause a 24% decrease in winter wheat yield (Zheng et al., 2003), so this year’s Arctic ozone hole may have caused noticeable reductions in Europe’s winter wheat crop….

It is highly probable that we will see future nasty climate change surprises far more serious than the Arctic ozone hole if we continue on our present business-as-usual approach of emitting huge quantities of greenhouse gases. Humans would be wise to act forcefully to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, as the cost of inaction is highly likely to be far greater than the cost of action.

Left: Ozone in Earth’s stratosphere at an altitude of approximately 12 miles (20 kilometers) in mid-March 2011, near the peak of the 2011 Arctic ozone loss. Right: chlorine monoxide–the primary agent of chemical ozone destruction in the cold polar lower stratosphere–the same day and altitude. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech.

JR:   This important finding almost qualifies as an “unknown unknown,” in that this impact was considered unlikely.  And if it harms Europe’s winter wheat crop, it could seriously add to the world’s growing food insecurity (see “Global Food Prices Stuck Near Record High Levels and links therein.   Meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters has a great post on this, which I reprint below.

Read more

Last week, I wrote about the important Dunlap-McRight paper that found organized climate change denial “Played a Crucial Role in Blocking Domestic Legislation.”

Although this is a pretty obvious conclusion to objective observers, the false-equivalence bunch, led by blogger Andy Revkin, couldn’t bring themselves to report on it without giving the professional disinformers equal time.

John Rennie, the former editor in chief of Scientific American, slammed Revkin’s piece in a must-read post, “Revkin’s False Equivalence on Climate Message Machines.”  Rennie was particularly critical of Revkin’s equating the climate denial machine with a laughable “climate alarmism machine” (whipped up by an Australian disinformer), which equates those who spread outright anti-scientific disinformation (often funded by fossil-fuel interests) with the serious work of climate scientists and governments (and others) who make use of that genuine, scientific work.

But what ultimately caught my eye in Revkin’s post is that he linked to a 2009 Climate Progress post I wrote [in response to a Revkin piece], “What If the Public had Perfect Climate Information?“  Revkin writes:

It’s also important to examine whether a world without such efforts — in which citizens had a clear view of both what is known, and uncertain, about the human factor in shaping climate-related risks — would appreciably change. Some insist the answer is yes [link to CP]. Given the deep-rooted human bias to the near and now and other aspects of our “inconvenient mind,” I’m not nearly so sure (although this doesn’t stop me from working on this challenge, of course).

It continues to boggle the mind that a professional reporter would seriously believe that if the public fully understood the subject — yes, including those things that are highly certain and those that are less so — that they would not support strong, prompt actions to reduce emissions.  But, then, Revkin continues to this day to only endorse his vague R&D-focused “energy quest” and criticize those of us (including the National Academy of Science) who push for strong emissions reductions starting now.  Since Revkin refuses to this day to tell us what level of concentrations he thinks the world should aim for –  even a broad range, say 450 ppm to 550 ppm — Revkin retains the luxury of attacking those who are willing to state what their target is while maintaining a faux high ground that they are being politically unrealistic while he can pretend his essentially do-nothing strategy is scientifically or morally viable, which it ain’t.

Of course, the public already supports far more action now than is tolerated by the anti-science crowd or the political party they have a hammerlock control of — see Mandatory Cuts in Carbon Pollution Favored by Over 70% of Voters and Small Businesses — and Even 49% of Fox Viewers. But  since they don’t fully understand the dire cost of inaction — and the  relatively low cost of action using existing or emerging technologies — their  is no serious political penalty imposed on those who spread lies or counsel delay.

What follows is an update of my 2009 post.  I am  very interested in your answer to the headline question.

Read more

General Electric Co may lease costly vehicle batteries to electric-car buyers, joining other companies looking to get more people to buy alternative-energy automobiles.

The largest U.S. conglomerate is just at the “thinking stage” of such a move, said Mark Little, head of GE’s research and development efforts, on Friday at an event at Nissan Motor Co’s (7201.T) research center near Detroit….

A battery leasing program is a venture that could allow GE to show off its range of businesses, from its industrial core which could be influential in manufacturing the batteries, to its GE Capital finance arm which could support the leasing.

This could be a crucial strategy for keeping down the first cost of electric cars.  Cost is one of the biggest barriers to entry for any alternative fuel vehicle, but especially electrics, since batteries can add considerable cost upfront and take many years to pay for themselves.

Indeed, batteries continue to come down in price, and  the slow global economy continues to keep oil prices down.  In a decade, EVs  will be considerably more cost-effective, but  the key is to jumpstart the market now so you can start getting economies of scale and heading down the learning curve

A key reason this strategy may be viable is that there is likely to be a large aftermarket for these batteries.

Read more

“Truth is, with the environment the way it is, we’re not even sure what kind of landmasses we’re going to be looking at in the next couple centuries,” the statement by humanity read.

The Onion boldly goes where many fear to tread:

PLANET EARTH—Facing what it called “a lot of uncertainty” on all six inhabited continents, the global civilization of the species Homo sapiens released a statement Monday announcing it would be “just sort of holding off on the idea of having any more kids for the time being.”

“Having children can be a wonderful thing, but to be honest, we’ve got our hands pretty full right now as it is,” the statement, issued by the entirety of the human race, read in part. “While there’s nothing quite like seeing the world anew through the eyes of a child, maybe it’s best to give it a few years. See what things look like a few years down the road. We’ve got a lot on our plate, and let’s be realistic: Another couple billion children might not be the best idea at this point.”

“It’s not necessarily a permanent decision,” the statement continued. “We just want to take it slow for now until things are a bit more stable, you know?”

Read more