“The climate has shifted to a new state capable of delivering rare & unprecedented weather events,” explained Weather Underground director of meteorology and former hurricane hunter, Dr. Jeff Masters.

Increasingly, scientists and meteorologists are asking whether global warming is driving a quantum jump — a non-linear shift — in our extreme weather.

We now have enough observations and analyses that a scientific literature on this subject has begun to emerge:

• Arctic Warming Favors Extreme, Prolonged Weather Events ‘Such As Drought, Flooding, Cold Spells And Heat Waves’
• Is Climate Change Bringing the Arctic to Europe?
• Hansen et al: “Extreme Heat Waves … in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 Were ‘Caused’ by Global Warming”

This is not your father’s climate, as Stu Ostro, senior director of weather communications at the Weather Channel has documented at great length (see this big PDF)

Peter Sinclair has put together an excellent video for the Yale Forum on why even the modest 1°C warming we’ve seen over the past century can cause a disproportionally large shift in our weather systems:

RealClimate ran an excellent, semi-technical explanation by Stefan Rahmstorf and Dim Coumou of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. They explained how global warming sharply increases the likelihood of ‘outlandish’ heat waves (see charts below) and concluded:

So in summary: even in the most simple, linear case of a shift in the normal distribution, the probability for “outlandish” heat records increases greatly due to global warming. But the more outlandish a record is, the more would we suspect that non-linear feedbacks are at play – which could increase their likelihood even more.

Since this is an emerging field, it’s no surprise that not every climate scientist agrees. Martin Hoerling, who heads the “Climate Scene Investigators” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, emailed blogger Andy Revkin a statement that included this truly remarkable sentence:

After all, the irony of extreme events is that the larger the magnitude the smaller the fractional contribution by human climate change.

This is the linear view of things: The modest amount of warming that we have had to date can have no more than a modest impact on any extreme event, large or small.

The emerging literature says otherwise. I asked for a comment by two leading climatologists, Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth.  Here is Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State:

Read more

President Barack Obama announced today a new proposal to help Americans at the pump by reining in excessive Wall Street speculation.

Obama’s proposals include funding for more “cops on the beat” to better monitor market activity, increasing authority at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, raising penalties for illegal manipulation, requiring oil traders to finance transactions with more of their own money, and creating stricter penalties for illegal market manipulation.

Obama said these initiatives would prevent Wall Street speculators from artificially driving up gas prices:

We can’t afford a situation where speculators artificially manipulate markets by buying up oil, creating the perception of a shortage, and driving prices higher — only to flip the oil for a quick profit. We can’t afford a situation where some speculators can reap millions, while millions of American families get the short end of the stick. That’s not the way the market should work.

Mitt Romney, who has repeatedly blamed Obama for gas prices, slammed the one initiative that could truly ease gas prices in the short-term — unlike Republican calls for increased drilling. He called the president’s proposal a “gimmick” to “dramatically increase federal regulation.”

Romney dismisses oil speculation. But even ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson admitted last year that Wall Street speculation adds as much as 50% to a barrel of oil.

McClatchy reported in March, “While tension over Iran has ratcheted up over the last few months, the price of oil and gasoline has leaped far beyond conventional supply and demand variables. Financial speculators are piling into the market, torquing the Iranian fear factor into ever higher prices.” Speculators made up 64 percent of the market last month.

Romney’s response is also out-of-step with the American public, since 54 percent want the U.S. to crack down on excessive speculation, according to a Hart Research poll. His campaign, however, is bankrolled by oil companies and Wall Street, with $750,000 from Big Oil donors and nearly $15.2 million from the financial industry.

Credit: Solar Energy International

by Rebecca Lefton, Jorge Madrid and Lejla Sadiku

A clean energy economy will generate new industries and jobs in manufacturing, construction, science and engineering, and much more. And if we do it right, it will also enhance gender pay equality. Let’s not transfer the gender pay gap of the traditional economy to the new green economy.

Green jobs today are ripe for pay equity

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics now boasts a new jobs category, Green Goods and Services, which details that our nation currently has 3.1 million green jobs across a wide variety of sectors, including construction, manufacturing, professional services, and science- and research-related fields. According to the bureau, the green jobs category comprises numerous new and traditional job sectors that “provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources” or “in which workers’ duties involve making their establishment’s production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources.”

Indeed, says the Brookings Institution, green jobs in the clean energy sector grew at twice the rate of jobs in the general economy during the peak of the recession from 2008–2010. While these new statistics tell a promising story for the growth of the green economy and nation’s job recovery as a whole, the potential for women to participate in this economic growth—both domestically and internationally—still remains unclear.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 pumped $90 billion of direct spending and tax incentives into clean energy technologies. Yet according to the U.S. Department of Labor, of the $500 million in Recovery Act funding, only $5 million was set aside to fund programs that train women for nontraditional jobs. A big opportunity was subsequently lost with the Senate’s failure in 2010 to advance a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that could have included provisions to provide opportunities for low-income workers and fund additional green jobs training for women in nontraditional sectors such as construction and manufacturing.

While the Recovery Act jump-started the process of building a clean energy economy, high unemployment continues to be a challenge as the overall economy recovers, particularly for women. As CAP Senior Economist Heather Boushey explained, in 2010 job growth for men outpaced job growth for women for 10 out of 12 months. Jobs in manufacturing and construction, which account for a large portion of green jobs and that are disproportionately held by men, are on the rise—for men. Women lost 18,000 manufacturing jobs from November 2009 to November 2010, while men gained 126,000 jobs.

Read more

Bob Lutz doesn't like what he hears from GOP pundits about the Volt

GM’s Former Vice Chairman, Bob Lutz, slammed GOP media pundits yesterday for spreading “pure fiction” about the Chevy Volt and other electric vehicles.

Conservative commentators — led by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News — have taken every opportunity to tear down the Chevy Volt, calling it “crappy,” a “Fred Flinstone car,” and an “exploding Obamamobile.” They’ve even called Volt drivers “dorks.”

The attacks have gotten so intense, hardcore Republicans are now slamming the onslaught of ludicrous comments. Lutz, a Republican who once called climate change a “total crock of shit,” has become increasingly critical of fellow conservatives who have undertaken a vicious media campaign against the Volt.

Speaking yesterday at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think thank, Lutz called out the “knee-jerk” pundits who have tried to turn the Volt into a political joke. E&E News reported on his comments:

“The unfortunate thing is that because electric cars are very associated with the left-wing environmental green movement to combat global warming and reduce [carbon dioxide], the idea of vehicle electrification triggers this visceral reaction on the part of conservatives — which is, if it’s electric it must be a product of the left-wing, Democratic enviro-political machine, therefore we hate it,” said Lutz, a self-described conservative.

“This is an unfortunate, knee-jerk reaction because what the Volt and other vehicles like it are about is … shifting portions of the American mobile sector onto a more efficient and domestically produced power source,” he said.

“No electric vehicle has ever caught fire [in use], and yet the right is constantly talking about the flammability, overheating, fire hazard of the electric vehicle,” he told the conservative audience. “Folks, it’s pure fiction. Please get it out of your heads.”

Last month, Lutz wrote a column in Forbes lamenting that “all the icons of conservatism are (shock, horror!) deliberately not telling the truth” about the Volt.

Lutz called Charles Krauthammer — his former “hero-figure on the Right” — a member of the “the list of right-wing pundits I no longer take seriously” for claiming that the Volt was an example of Obama’s “interventionist policies.”

In fact, the Volt has been in development since 2006 — two years before Obama was even elected.

Lutz isn’t the only conservative who is roiled by the GOP punditocracy’s campaign against electric vehicles. Last month, Lee Speckerman, another self-professed lover of Fox News, went on the network’s morning show to bash its commentators’ “fetish for demonizing the Volt.” Speckerman argued the Volt was “the iPhone of the American automobile industry.”

Despite the continued attacks and a cycle of very sluggish sales, March was GM’s best sales month ever for the Volt.

Related Post:

• Fox News Argued Getting Off Of OPEC Oil With Alternative Fuels and Electric Cars Was ‘A National Security Issue’. Then Obama Won.

by Christy Goldfuss

With gas prices rising and many Americans concerned about getting jobs, it may come as a surprise that members of Congress are starting a new work session by focusing on hunting and fishing.

However, you don’t have to look far to explain why H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act, introduced by Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), is at the top of the to-do list.

There are key Senate races in New Mexico and Montana that will determine whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge of the upper chamber of Congress. In these states, sportsmen make up significant portions of the population. A Colorado College State of the Rockies Project poll published earlier this year shows that in New Mexico 26% of respondents identify as hunters and anglers. In Montana, the number is even more significant, with 44% of respondents saying they are hunters and anglers.

Rep. Miller says the bill would open up hunting opportunities. In fact, it would open up protected lands to commercial activities such as road building and off road vehicle use — lands that are open to hunting, but not mechanized activities.

A Congressional Research Services report found that H.R. 4089 would essentially gut the Wilderness Act, which has protected more than 100 million acres in the U.S., much of it prime hunting and fishing lands.

That is why some sportsmen actually oppose this package of bills designed to court their political support. The Nevada state coordinator of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers recently said, “sportsmen and women who enjoy the challenge and opportunity of backcountry hunting will lose those experiences if this bill becomes law.”

The balance between environmental protection and hunters rights can be tenuous, sometimes creating unexpected political alliances. For example, you can find many sportsmen willing to talk about climate change, when most Republican candidates avoid it.

The Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012 is supported by the National Rifle Association and many off road vehicle groups.  It is even rumored that the NRA will track member’s votes on this bill so they can use it as a political messaging opportunity this election season.  This seemingly puts any member of Congress who supports conservation in a difficult spot.

However, some numbers from the State of the Rockies Project poll, show that conservation is extremely important to the hunting and fishing community. In Montana and New Mexico, approximately 70% of sportsmen identify as conservationists.

Christy Goldfuss is the Public Lands Project Director at American Progress.

Image by JD Lasica

by Justin Ellis, via the Nieman Journalism Lab

Huffington Post wants gobs of traffic. It also want reader engagement. But there are some things it just won’t do — like equivocate on whether climate change is real.

HuffPost Science recently featured a story on former astronauts and scientists upset with NASA’s position connecting carbon dioxide to climate change. It’s not new to see sides clash on the issue, and any editor knows it’s a debate that will predictably spill over into the comment thread on a story. HuffPost Science senior editor David Freeman offered up this question at the end of his piece: “What do you think? Is NASA pushing ‘unsettled science’ on global warming?”

One problem: The question violated one of the Huffington Post’s editorial policies. Not long after the piece was posted an editor’s note replaced the question, saying in part:

We’ve removed the question because HuffPost is not agnostic on the matter. Along with the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (including 98% of working climate scientists), we recognize that climate change is real and agree with the agencies and experts who are concerned about the role of carbon dioxide.

“The way the call for engagement was raised was as if we’re somehow agnostic about the reality of climate change,” Arianna Huffington told me.

Huffington framed the incident for me as one of editorial policy. But this isn’t a simple case of clashing stylebooks, of one outlet favoring the Oxford comma and another leaving it out. This is something more akin to a policy position: Within the editorial confines of HuffPost, issues like climate change and evolution are settled, Huffington told me. That doesn’t mean divergent viewpoints aren’t welcomed, she said — just that on certain issues the reporting won’t offer up a false equivalency.

“Where truth is ascertainable, we consider it our responsibility to make it very clear and not to — in the guise of some kind of fake objectivity, the media often pretend that every issue has two sides and that both sides deserve equal weight,” Huffington said. “That’s not the case, and that’s not our editorial stand.”

Traditionalists might find the idea of a mainstream, general-audience news organization staking out these kinds of stances in news stories radical. Huffington doesn’t see it that way, saying that traditional media spends far too much time trying to provide balance on issues that are, within certain facts and other data, settled. For her journalists, she said, that means doing reporting that assesses facts and doesn’t “pretend that the truth is supposed to be found in the middle,” she said.

“Editorially, we train our editors and reporters to basically not buy into what Jay Rosen calls the ‘View from Nowhere’ journalism,” she said. “We see our role more as doing everything we can to ferret out the truth, rather than be a kind of Pontius Pilate washing our hand of the possibility of truth.” That’s evocative of NPR’s new ethics guidelines, which make a similar distinction:

Read more

by Andrew Freedman, via Climate Central

When arriving at La Guardia Airport in New York, it’s easy to see the stark realities it faces in trying to cope with global warming. As jets glide in over the brackish waters of Flushing Bay, one can almost reach out and touch the water as it laps against the small levees at runway’s edge.

By mid-century, global warming-related sea level rise is expected to render these levees ineffective against even relatively weak storms, according to a 2011 climate assessment and supported by Climate Central’s report on coastal flooding. And the predicament facing La Guardia is far from unique. All three of the city’s major airports are situated along the ocean and face similar sea level rise-related risks.

But it’s not just the city’s airports at risk. As 106 million passengers per year funnel through the terminals, collecting their luggage, they’ll head into New York via taxis, trains, cars and buses – another network of transportation that is at considerable risk of flooding from the combination of sea level rise and storm surges.

The flooding likely to occur in the greater New York City area as a result of a 4-foot rise in sea level. Areas that are no longer white, including La Guardia Airport, represent those underwater. Credit: Surging Seas/Climate Central.

As sea level increases in response to manmade global warming, the 100-year storm is turning into a far more common event, and climate change adaptation is taking on a heightened sense of urgency throughout the transportation sector. The challenges are particularly acute in the New York City area, where mass transit moves more than 8 million people every day, 24/7, into and out of a city with 520 miles of waterfront.

Given the climate change-related challenges the city faces, it’s no surprise New York is mobilizing to fortify its infrastructure. It is spending $1.5 billion over 15 years to improve its stormwater management, cooling white roofs and clean-fuel buses, and has pledged to reduce city-wide greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2030.

Read more

Our round-up of the latest in climate and clean energy. Please post more links below.

After dropping for two years during the recession, emissions of the gases blamed for global warming rose in 2010 as the economy heated up, the Environmental Protection Agency reports. “The increase from 2009 to 2010 was primarily due to an increase in economic output resulting in an increase in energy consumption across all sectors, and much warmer summer conditions resulting in an increase in electricity demand for air conditioning that was generated primarily by combusting coal and natural gas,” said EPA. [New York Times]

The Environmental Protection Agency’s apparent change of heart on plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions at existing power plants came during a White House review of the agency’s proposed greenhouse gas rule for new plants, according to documents obtained by Politico. [Politico]

In a new study in the journal Transport Policy, Ralph Buehler and John Pucher suggest that cities might actually be able to influence how many cyclists are on the road. Perhaps all they have to do is — and this shouldn’t come as a huge surprise — build more bike lanes and bike paths. [WonkBlog]

Many climate change models have predicted increases in pollen levels and associated allergies, as rising carbon dioxide levels and warmer temperatures spur plant growth. [Summit County Citizens Voice]

There’s a disconnect between the real world and congressional Republicans. I know, I know: This is a statement of the obvious. But if you want to see just how big the disconnect is, look at what’s going on with gas prices. [Washington Post Opinions]

A bill before the California Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce this month seeks to equalize renewable energy installation in the state by promoting small-scale solar rooftops in the disadvantaged communities. [California Watch]

At least one penguin at the St. Louis Zoo appears to be a feisty opponent of Newt Gingrich. [Huffington Post]

At a time when glacier melting is a burning issue in Pakistan, concerned experts met here on Monday to highlight the emerging climate-change challenges and to reduce threats of floods in Northern Pakistan. [Pakistan Observer]

Japan’s government is in a race against time to approve the restart of two reactors and possibly determine the fate of the country’s troubled nuclear power industry. [Guardian]