UPDATE:  Andy Revkin’s comment (here) may be the single most head-exploding and revisionist thing he has ever written. I reply.  The adaptation expert, Dr. Richard Klein, offers a defense of the IPCC process in the comments (here).

Fortunately, the public already understands that global warming makes extreme weather more severe, as new polling reveals:

September polling by ecoAmerica found that 57% of Americans already understand “If we don’t do something about climate change now, we can end up having our farmland turned to desert.”  Duh:

The Palmer Drought Severity Index on a “moderate” warming path (via NCAR, click to enlarge). “A reading of -4 or below is considered extreme drought.” During the 1930s Dust Bowl, the PDSI spiked briefly to -6 but rarely exceeded -3.  We probably can’t stop this, but we can avert far, far worse post-2050 (see below).

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is coming out Friday with its umpteenth watered down report on climate science, in this case on extreme weather.  The thing to remember about IPCC reports is that pretty much everyone involved has to sign off on every word, so it is inevitably a least common denominator document.

The actual scientific literature from 2011 is far more useful than this report — see “Study Finds 80% Chance Russia’s 2010 July Heat Record Would Not Have Occurred Without Climate Warming” and “NOAA Study Finds Human-Caused Climate Change Already a Major Factor in More Frequent Mediterranean Droughts.”  I will provide the links to as many recent studies as possible in this post.

Indeed we already know from a major 2011 study that “human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas.”  As predicted, the warming has put more water vapor in the air, making deluges more intense.  Climatologist Kevin Trenberth explains:

There is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms,

Obviously, since it’s getting hotter, we’re worsening extreme heat waves — both in intensity and duration and scale (the area the heat wave covers).  For the same reason, we know humans are making droughts worse — in intensity, duration, and scale.  The earlier snow melts also makes summer droughts worse.

Actual observations reveal that since 1950, the global percentage of dry areas has increased by about 1.74% of global land area per decade (see here).  Heck, our best scientists are already using global warming to help them predict dangerous extreme weather (see “USGS Expert Explains How Global Warming Likely Contributes to East Africa’s Brutal Drought“).

The reinsurance industry understands all this (see Munich Re: “The only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change”).

Again, much if not most of the public appear to have a better sense of what’s happening right now than you’ll find in the summaries of a typical IPCC report, to go by Yale’s 2011 polling and the September poll from ecoAmerica quoted at the top, which also found:

69% of Americans Know “Weather Conditions (Such as Heat Waves and Droughts) Are Made Worse by Climate Change”

The American public can’t miss the extreme weather because it is everywhere now and increasingly off the charts (see “A New Record: 14 U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters in 2011“) and links below.

Of course, what’s to come is the real issue, since we still have control over that.  We’re facing 5 to 10 times the warming this century that we’ve seen in the past half century.

Unfortunately, the IPCC continues to conflate uncertainty in future emissions of greenhouse gases with uncertainty in the climate’s sensitivity to those emissions.  This means they present a very large range of possible overall impacts — and that allows the deniers to trumpet the low range with their powerful fossil-fuel-funded megaphone and induces the media to provide “balance” in their stories between the mid-range and the low range.

The reality is we are on the highest emissions trends (see “Biggest Jump Ever in Global Warming Pollution in 2010 means “levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago”).  And the latest science and observation points towards the high end of the climate’s sensitivity (see Journal of Climate: New cloud feedback results “provide support for the high end of current estimates of global climate sensitivity”).

Most climate scientists know what is coming if we don’t act quickly– and more and more are shedding their reticence to speak out, even if that is not yet reflected in bland, least-common-denominator IPCC reports (see Lonnie Thompson on why climatologists are speaking out: “Virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization”).

And as long as the deniers, inactivists and climate ignorati rule the debate, inaction is assured, which means that we are risking extreme weather beyond imagination, extreme events on top of an average warming this century that could hit 13-18°F over most of U.S. and 25°F in the Arctic:

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

Think solar is only for the 1%? Not so fast.

New data from California shows that two thirds of solar PV installations from 2009 to 2011 were in zip codes with median household incomes between $40,000 and $84,000, according to analysis from PV Solar Report and SunRun.

Solar PV is often criticized as an “eco-chic” technology only available for the richest, most fashionable greenies. Of course, if you’ve followed the solar industry (or invested in a system of your own), you know that is not true.

Yes, the upfront costs of investing in a system can still be prohibitive, particularly in states without good incentive programs. But the falling cost of equipment combined with innovative “solar services” and group purchasing programs can actually make solar energy cheaper than grid-based electricity in some states.

The installation trends in the industry — the emergence of point-of-sale financing, growth in plug-and-play systems, dramatic improvements in hardware and electronics, and better installation techniques — are making the technology accessible to a wide range of consumers.

We should be careful not to make sweeping conclusions about this California-specific data. But let’s remember, this is a solar market that just passed the 1-GW installation mark, a feat only accomplished by a few other countries.

And as it’s often said: “So goes California, so goes the nation.”

After the spiking of the Keystone XL pipeline by the Obama administration, the tar sands industry moved quickly to open an alternate route from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries. With the announcement of the pipeline deal, U.S. oil prices spiked, on the expectation that Canadian tar sands crude would no longer be locked in the Midwest market. ConocoPhillips sold its stake in the Seaway Pipeline, which connects Texas to Oklahoma, to Enbridge Inc. Enbridge plans to alter the 200,000 barrel-per-day pipeline so that it can take Candian crude from Oklahoma to Texas:

The sale of an oil pipeline running from Oklahoma to Texas upended U.S. energy markets Wednesday, sending the price of crude surging above $100 a barrel as America copes with the promise and pitfalls of its new energy boom. Enbridge Inc.—which bought a 50% stake in the Seaway Pipeline—announced it would reverse the direction of the flow, allowing more crude to move south from oil storage in Cushing, Okla., into the world’s largest refinery complex along the Gulf Coast.

Every analysis has been that giving Canada access to Gulf Coast refineries would increase prices for Americans. TransCanada estimated its 700,000 bpd Keystone XL pipeline would increase oil prices by about $6.55 a barrel in the United States.

Despite the facts, the fiction that building the Keystone XL pipeline would benefit American oil consumers has been popular among proponents.

Sen. Grassley (R-IA) claimed the Keystone XL project would “reduce prices at the pump for consumers.” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said the pipeline would “lower gas prices.” Energy chair Fred Upton (R-MI) claimed expediting the pipeline would “lower energy prices.” Natural Resource Committee chair Doc Hastings (R-TX) claimed Keystone XL would “lower gasoline prices.” Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) said it would “help reduce energy prices.” Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) said his vote to approve the pipeline “reduces the cost of gas and boosts the economy.” Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) complained that “delaying the pipeline will hurt American energy prices.” Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) said the pipeline would mean “lower prices.” Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) said the pipeline would help “stabilize prices at the pump for Michigan families.” Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) claimed it would “lower gas prices.” Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) said the pipeline would help “hold down future price increases.” It would “help reduce the burden of high gas prices on American families,” claimed Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA). Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) said it would “lower the price of fuel for all Americans.”

By Daniel J. Weiss and Matthew Kasper

By December 16 the Environmental Protection Agency will promulgate its final rule requiring coal-fired power plants to reduce their emissions of mercury, arsenic, acid gases, and other toxic chemicals. The EPA notes that these safeguards will reduce premature deaths by 17,000 people annually as well as prevent 12,000 hospital visits and 120,000 cases of aggravated asthma. The economic benefits could outweigh the costs by up to $14-to-$1.

Yet a concerted cadre of big dirty utilities and coal companies are doing everything in their power to scuttle or delay these essential safeguards 21 years after the Clean Air Act required them.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, or ACCCE, is a coal industry coalition leading the charge to block the mercury and air toxics reduction rules. These efforts include spending $35 million on misleading television ads. Its members include major utilities such as Southern Company and DTE Energy. Huge coal companies are also major ACCCE supporters, including Arch Coal and Peabody. Other members include railroads that haul coal.

ACCCE is a vocal opponent of the air toxics rule for utilities. They even have a “countdown clock” for the days until the safeguards are issued. Its members are primarily concerned that the air toxics rule “is the most expensive rule the EPA has ever written for coal-fueled power plants.”

But this claim ignores the fact that the 22 ACCCE companies have nearly $18 billion in cash reserves, which should substantially ease their ability to withstand any economic impact of cleanup.

A Federal Reserve report released this month documented the massive cash reserves held by American corporations. The Wall Street Journal reported:

Read more

At today’s House hearing on the Solyndra loan guarantee, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton questioned Energy Secretary Steven Chu on the decision to approve financial backing of the now-bankrupt solar manufacturer.

Upton lamented the “red flags” that outside parties were raising about the viability of Solyndra in 2009 when the loan guarantee was issued, wondering if those concerns were “either ignored or minimized by senior officials.”

However, during the exact same time period when the Solyndra loan guarantee was being reviewed, Upton asked the DOE to approve a loan guarantee to a Michigan-based solar manufacturer — just months after the company stopped production at its plant and two weeks after announcing it would lay off 400 workers. The company, Uni-Solar, manufactures flexible amorphous-silicon thin film solar materials that be applied to a variety of surfaces.

The Washington Post reports on Upton’s letter to the DOE, co-written with a bi-partisan group of lawmakers, which asked the agency to consider backing Uni-Solar, even while its parent company, Energy Conversion Devices, was publicly facing problems:

Read more

by Eric Place, in a cross post from Sightline Daily

The planned Keystone XL oil pipeline has earned major national attention for the damage it would do to the climate. At the same time, another climate drama is playing out with much less attention as coal companies make plans to export huge quantities to Asia by way of Pacific Northwest ports. It’s pretty clear that both projects are environmental horror stories, but I’ve been wondering: which one is worse?

So, from the “King Kong versus Godzilla” files, here’s my analysis of their carbon impacts. It turns out, coal exports are actually the bigger problem—and that’s really saying something.

The result surprised me: coal exports look to be an even bigger climate disaster than the pipeline. There are, in fact, quite a bit more direct emissions from burning the coal than from the oil. That’s true even when one counts the energy-intensive tar sands extraction and processing—and, of course, there are plenty of upstream emissions associated with coal mining that I’ve left out of the equation here. (In order to make a roughly direct comparison, I also omitted emissions associated with both products’ mining, refining, transportation, and so forth.) Clearly we can ill afford either one of these projects, but until we have a clear energy policy that respects climate science we’ll be wrestling with these kind of killer projects one at a time.

Now, for all the energy and math geeks out there, here’s the methodology I used to generate these numbers:

Read more

by Bill McKibben, in a re-post from TomDispatch.com

Conventional wisdom has it that the next election will be fought exclusively on the topic of jobs. But President Obama’s announcement last week that he would postpone a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until after the 2012 election, which may effectively kill the project, makes it clear that other issues will weigh in — and that, oddly enough, one of them might even be climate change.

The pipeline decision was a true upset.  Everyone — and I mean everyone who “knew” how these things work — seemed certain that the president would approve it. The National Journal runs a weekly poll of “energy insiders” — that is, all the key players in Washington. A month to the day before the Keystone XL postponement, this large cast of characters was “virtually unanimous” in guaranteeing that it would be approved by year’s end.

Transcanada Pipeline, the company that was going to build the 1,700-mile pipeline from the tar-sands fields of Alberta, Canada, through a sensitive Midwestern aquifer to the Gulf of Mexico, certainly agreed.  After all, they’d already mowed the strip and prepositioned hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pipe, just waiting for the permit they thought they’d bought with millions in lobbying gifts and other maneuvers. Happily, activists across the country weren’t smart enough to know they’d been beaten, and so they staged the largest civil disobedience action in 35 years, not to mention ringing the White House with people, invading Obama campaign offices, and generally proving that they were willing to fight.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

JR:  In February, a major study in Science that found the second ’100-year’ Amazon drought in 5 years caused huge CO2 emissions. If this pattern continues, the forest would become a warming source.  A new study in Science adds important insight (video below, original study here).

Cross-posted from the NASA website

By analyzing nearly a decade of satellite data, a team of scientists led by researchers from the University of California, Irvine and funded by NASA has created a model that can successfully predict the severity and geographic distribution of fires in the Amazon rain forest and the rest of South America months in advance.

Though previous research has shown that human settlement patterns are the primary factor that drives the distribution of fires in the Amazon, the new research demonstrates that environmental factors – specifically small variations in ocean temperatures – amplify human impacts and underpin much of the variability in the number of fires the region experiences from one year to the next.

“Higher than normal sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic and the Pacific proved to be red flags that a severe fire season was on its way in four to six months,” said Yang Chen, the University of California, Irvine, scientist who led the research. Chen and his colleagues found temperature changes of as little as .25°C (.45°F) in the North Atlantic and 1°C (1.8 °F) in the Central Pacific can be used to forecast the severity of the fire season across much of the Amazon.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

With incidents of prolonged drought, rising sea levels, and flooding on the rise, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced a bill on Wednesday to require federal natural resource agencies to plan for the long-term effects of climate change, and encourage states to prepare natural resources adaptation plans. The Safeguarding America’s Future and Environment Act (SAFE) Act also would create a science advisory board to ensure that the planning uses the best available science. The proposed legislation would require the development of a coordinated national adaptation strategy:

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Panel shall develop a strategy to protect, restore, and conserve natural resources so that natural resources become more resilient, adapt to, and withstand the ongoing and expected impacts of climate variability and change.

It would also encourage, but not require, state-specific adaptation plans.

Effects of climate change mentioned as examples in the legislation are droughts and heatwaves, storms and floods; wildfires; outbreaks of forest pests and invasive species; flooding and erosion of coastal areas due to rising sea levels; melting glaciers and sea ice; thawing permafrost; shifting fish, wildlife, and plant population ranges; disruptive shifts in the timing of fish, wildlife, and plant natural history cycles, such as blooming, breeding, and seasonal migrations; and ocean acidification.

The legislation is cosponsored by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), also a member of EPW. Baucus has repeatedly opposed action to limit climate change pollution.

Download the SAFE Act (as prepared for introduction).

Energy Secretary Steven Chu is the sole witness at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Solyndra (webcast at 10 am).  The DOE posted Chu’s testimony and this nice chart:

U.S. solar cell (PV) and module manufacturing market share.  Yes, the peak coincides with the ascension  of the Gingrich Congress and its efforts to stop clean energy deployment

Here are some key excerpts on the clean energy race:

Investments in clean energy reached a record $243 billion last year. Solar photovoltaic systems alone represent a global market worth more than $80 billion today. In the coming decades, the clean energy sector is expected to grow by hundreds of billions of dollars. We are in a fierce global race to capture this market.

In the past year and a half, the China Development Bank has offered more than $34 billion in credit lines to China’s solar companies. China is not alone: To strengthen their countries’ competitiveness, governments around the world are providing strong support to their clean energy industries. Germany and Canada operate government-backed clean energy lending programs, and more than 50 countries offer some type of public financing for clean energy projects….

When it comes to the clean energy race, America faces a simple choice: compete or accept defeat. I believe we can and must compete.

And on Solyndra:

As the Secretary of Energy, the final decisions on Solyndra were mine, and I made them with the best interest of the taxpayer in mind. I want to be clear: over the course of Solyndra’s loan guarantee, I did not make any decision based on political considerations.

My decision to guarantee a loan to Solyndra was based on the analysis of experienced professionals and on the strength of the information they had available to them at the time.

The Solyndra transaction went through more than two years of rigorous technical, financial and legal due diligence, spanning two Administrations, before a loan guarantee was issued….

Here is Chu’s whole testimony:

Read more

Other stories below: Anti-Science Republicans Cut Top Science Office by 1/3; Global Temperature Extremes “Virtually Certain” to Rise, says UN

Defense Scientists Want Climate Change Intel

The United States’ Department of Defense needs to know more about how climate change affects global security, recommends a report by the the department’s science advisers, the Defense Science Board (DSB).

“Changes in climate patterns and their impact on the physical environment can create profound effects on populations in parts of the world and present new challenges to global security and stability,” wrote Defense Science Board co-chairs, Larry Welch and Willian Howard in a letter preceding the DSB report, Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security.

“Failure to anticipate and mitigate these changes increases the threat of more failed states with the instabilities and potential for conflict inherent in such failures,” the DSB co-chairs warned.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more