NASA reported today some truly shocking findings on the melting of the Greenland ice sheet this summer:

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

July 24, 2012: For several days this month, Greenland’s surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.

Extent of surface melt over Greenland’s ice sheet on July 8 (left) and July 12 (right). Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12.

We reported last month on the “Unprecedented May Heat In Greenland,” where the temperature hit 76.6°F. So it would seem that unprecedented heat leads to unprecedented melting.

I saw the ABC News story tonight, which had the headline quote. I’ll post the video when it is online.

The NASA release has more detail:

Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., was analyzing radar data from the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12. Nghiem said, “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?”

Nghiem consulted with Dorothy Hall at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Hall studies the surface temperature of Greenland using the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. She confirmed that MODIS showed unusually high temperatures and that melt was extensive over the ice sheet surface.

Thomas Mote, a climatologist at the University of Georgia, Athens, Ga; and Marco Tedesco of City University of New York also confirmed the melt seen by Oceansat-2 and MODIS with passive-microwave satellite data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder on a U.S. Air Force meteorological satellite.

The melting spread quickly. Melt maps derived from the three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet’s surface had melted. By July 12, 97 percent had melted.

This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland’s weather since the end of May. “Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,” said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate.

Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores. . . .

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

That statement is a classic example of what James Hansen called “scientific reticence.”

The scientific literature and recent observations — along with our ongoing lack of climate action — have long passed the worrisome stage (see the post last month “Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Nearing Critical ‘Tipping Point’ ” and links below).

Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice blog notes that “In the meantime Dr. Jason Box reports on the Meltfactor blog“:

Read more

Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman had a great column in the New York Times Monday, “Loading The Climate Dice.”

He discusses the forthcoming paper on “The New Climate Dice,” by NASA’s James Hansen along with Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy, in which they attribute some of the uber-extreme heat waves to global warming. I blogged on the first draft of that paper back in January (click here, excerpted below).

Krugman ends his discussion this way:

This drought has already sent corn prices to their highest level ever. If it continues, it could cause a global food crisis, because the U.S. heartland is still the world’s breadbasket. And yes, the drought is linked to climate change: such events have happened before, but they’re much more likely now than they used to be.

Now, maybe this drought will break in time to avoid the worst. But there will be more events like this. Joseph Romm, the influential climate blogger, has coined the term “Dust-Bowlification” for the prospect of extended periods of extreme drought in formerly productive agricultural areas. He has been arguing for some time that this phenomenon, with its disastrous effects on food security, is likely to be the leading edge of damage from climate change, taking place over the next few decades; the drowning of Florida by rising sea levels and all that will come later.

And here it comes.

Will the current drought finally lead to serious climate action? History isn’t encouraging. The deniers will surely keep on denying, especially because conceding at this point that the science they’ve trashed was right all along would be to admit their own culpability for the looming disaster. And the public is all too likely to lose interest again the next time the die comes up white or blue.

But let’s hope that this time is different. For large-scale damage from climate change is no longer a disaster waiting to happen. It’s happening now.

For updates of my discussion of “Dust-Bowlification,” see “We’re Already Topping Dust Bowl Temperatures — Imagine What’ll Happen If We Fail To Stop 10°F Warming.” For a discussion of the impacts of Dust-Bowlification on food, see “Climate Story of the Year: Warming-Driven Drought and Extreme Weather Emerge as Key Threat to Global Food Security.”

Here is some chart-filled analysis of Hansen’s paper from my January post:

“Climate dice,” describing the chance of unusually warm or cool seasons relative to climatology, have become progressively “loaded” in the past 30 years, coincident with rapid global warming.  The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased.  An important change is the emergence of a category of summertime extremely hot outliers, more than three standard deviations (σ) warmer than climatology.

This hot extreme, which covered much less than 1% of Earth’s surface in the period of climatology [1951-1980], now typically covers about 10% of the land area.  We conclude that extreme heat waves, such as that in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2010, were “caused” by global warming, because their likelihood was negligible prior to the recent rapid global warming.  We discuss practical implications of this substantial, growing climate change.

Read more

The Keystone XL pipeline is like like that annoying ex-boyfriend who keeps pestering you. No matter how many letters you send, no matter what you say to him, no matter what you do to make your intentions clear, he’ll keep coming back. And it’s finally time to ditch him for good.

Check out this great video produced by the Post Carbon Institute on why America needs to break-up with the Keystone tar sands pipeline for good:

The Big Five oil companies – BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell – are slated to announce their 2012 second-quarter profits later this week.

We can expect these companies, all of which rank in the top 10 of the “Fortune 500 Global Ranking,” to reveal billions of dollars more in profits, after earning $375 million in profits per day in 2011 ($261,000 per minute), and $368 million per day in the first three-months of 2012 — bringing their combined profits to $1 trillion from 2001 through 2011.

Below is a quick look at just how much these Big Oil companies are making, and where they are spending their billions in profits.

Big Oil’s Big Profits, In 24 Hours

• The five biggest oil companies earned a combined profit of $375 million per day, or a record $137 billion profit for the year, in 2011, despite reducing their oil production.

• In 60 seconds, these five companies earned $261,000 — more than 96 percent of American households make in one year.

• These five oil companies received $6.6 million in federal tax breaks every day.

• In 2011, the three largest domestic public oil companies spent $100 million of their profits each day, or over 50 percent, buying back their own stock to enrich their board, senior managers, and largest share holders.

• The entire oil and gas industry spent on average $400,000 each day lobbying senators and representatives to weaken public health safeguards and keep big oil tax breaks, totaling nearly $150 million.

• Each CEO of the Big Five companies received an average of $60,110 in compensation per day last year. On average, their pay jumped 55 percent in 2011. Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson’s compensation came close to $100,000 per day last year.

Read more

When New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie ran for office in 2009, he campaigned very aggressively on his belief in the value of renewable energy.

Yesterday, Christie backed up that belief by signing a bill into law that will help expand and stabilize New Jersey’s robust solar industry.

For Christie, expanding the solar industry was a fairly straightforward, sensible decision in a state with hundreds of thriving businesses in the sector. But in the national political context — at a time when the GOP has made it a top goal to reduce support for renewable energy — the decision was a bold move.

Why did Christie step up to protect solar? Because the industry has become an increasingly important part of New Jersey’s economy.

By putting in place strong state-level solar targets and establishing a trading platform for solar renewable energy certificates, New Jersey quickly jumped to become the second-largest solar market in the U.S. The state currently has more than 16,000 systems worth 800 megawatts of capacity installed around the state — generating more than 1 percent of electricity.

All that development has supported nearly 3,000 jobs and 500 businesses, according to a 2011 census from the Solar Foundation.

So why did the program need to be changed?

New Jersey has a tradeable certificate program for promoting solar. Under the state’s promotion law, energy suppliers must accumulate a certain number of solar renewable energy certificates (SRECs) — credits that represent 1,000 kilowatt-hours of solar electricity — to prove they’ve met the set targets. Energy suppliers can either generate the credits themselves by investing in solar projects or purchase them from customers. The price of the credits is based on supply and demand.

After implementing the “floating” credit market, the state’s industry quickly boomed. However, the frenzy of installation activity created an oversupply of SRECs, forcing prices sharply downward. The rapid price decline made it harder to finance new projects and pushed out the payback period for system owners who hadn’t secured contracts for their credits.

So the New Jersey legislature stepped in and created new rules that will hopefully stabilize prices. By changing the state’s solar targets from a fixed yearly number to a percentage of actual energy usage, there will be more price elasticity in the market.

Christie issued a statement yesterday on why he supported the changes:

Read more

By Carl Pope, via  Take Part

Serious—and less serious, but surprising—conservatives and Republicans are beginning to suggest that a tax on carbon might be on the table next year as part of comprehensive tax reform. Carbon taxes fit conservative tax theory: They hit consumption, not savings or investments; are market-perfecting, instead of distorting; and are easy to collect.

So it might be a real chance. That makes this a learning moment for the climate movement. Can we remember that carbon taxes are a tool, not a panacea, a step towards low carbon economics and not its essence, and a part of a political strategy, not a magic elixir that substitutes for strategy?

Or, as we did with cap and trade, will we invest this modest opportunity with pixie dust-like qualities that obscure the unavoidable trade-offs and risks?

A carbon tax—even a modest one—would be progress. It would generate revenues, and if climate advocates can bring power to the negotiating table, those revenues in part might be devoted to other aspects of energy innovation, like paying for renewable power incentives.

It would send a market signal to investors—meaningful in the electricity sector, where a $20 per ton levy means a significant $0.02 advantage for renewable over coal power. But $20 per ton is a trivial $0.20 on a gallon of gasoline or diesel, certainly not enough to move investor or consumer behavior. This is one reason why you can also make a case for an additional levy on oil, higher perhaps on imports, to provide a real incentive for efficient, electric or bio-fueled vehicle purchasers.

Innovators in Action: Carl Pope on Energy from TakePart on Vimeo.

It would put in place one important piece of an eventual, global, harmonized carbon fee, as economist Jeffrey Sachs has proposed—the best idea thus far for eventually sending the bill for climate disruption and repair to those who properly owe it: fossil fuel consumers.

Read more

High concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in London could increase breathing problems among Olympic athletes, according to a leading sports medicine committee.

According to Dr.  William S. Silvers of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), the air quality in London during the 2012 Olympic games — set to start in three days — could cause a “narrowing of the airways” in athletes competing outdoors.

Currently, London has a higher concentration of nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere than Beijing, China, had during the last summer Olympic games before the Chinese government banned half of all cars in an effort to reduce pollution. London has spent far less than China did to address air pollution.

The AAAAI concludes:

According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, [exercise-induced bronchoconstriction or EIB] affects an estimated 20% of top athletes and an estimated 1 in 6 of all Olympic athletes.

“It has been well documented that elite athletes in the Olympics have an increased prevalence of EIB. They may not have suspected it, since they don’t have chronic asthma but rather a narrowing of the airways that comes specifically with exercise,” explained William S. Silvers, MD, FAAAAI, of the AAAAI’s Sports Medicine Committee.

An added concern for athletes with asthma and EIB is the amount of pollution in London, which may cause symptoms to worsen. Ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide and other pollutants can inflame the airways of sensitive people and even cause an asthma attack.

Asthma attacks and incidences of EIB could have serious impacts on the athletes’ health and performance at the Games. The UK is not in compliance with European Union air quality guidelines and the organization Clean Air in London is concerned that the pollution might be a problem for spectators of the games as well.

In response to concerns expressed by advocacy groups and public health officials, the London Air Quality Network has set up a website, londonair.org.uk, to provide up-to-date information on air quality at Olympic venues around the city.

– Max Frankel

Today in Houston, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board will present the results of its investigation into the causes behind 2010′s devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The board found that BP failed to pay adequate attention to the safety of its rig systems, focusing instead on worker safety precautions like proper boots.

The board concluded that “BP applied lesser process safety standards” to contracted drilling rigs and that the company “dropped the ball on major accident hazards.” It also concluded that the disaster can be largely blamed on BP’s lack of “comprehensive hazard evaluation” for the Deepwater Horizon rig and the Macondo well.

Safety board managing director Daniel Horowitz told the Associated Press that BP was chronically short-sighted in its safety measures:

BP “did not conduct an effective comprehensive hazard evaluation of the major accident risks for the activities of the Deepwater Horizon rig or for the Macondo well” and accounted only for previous BP assets, not temporary ones like Deepwater Horizon. The Chemical Safety Board found that BP “focused on financial risks, not process safety risks” when drilling offshore.

The board’s presentation highlights the difference between worker safety measures and system safety measures, which are designed to make sure rigs are safe and not subject to leaks or combustion. The board found that BP and Transocean had an “inadequate” system in place.

Chemical Safety Board spokesperson Cheryl Mackenzie said the neglect bears an “eerie resemblance” to what the agency found in its investigation of the 2005 Texas City Refinery BP explosion, which killed 15 people. In that case, BP failed to ensure system safety by overlooking safety indicators like well kicks, flammable gas leaks and equipment damage.

“One of the main lessons coming out of the Texas City disaster was the need for a separate focus on process safety as opposed to personal safety,” board member Dr. Anthony Hopkins explains in a working paper, noting that the U.S. has weak regulations on rig safety indicators. Ian Whewell, another board member, said that the problem does not seem to be improving: “[I]t is clear that performance indicators are in many companies still not being used as effectively as they should be to control major accident risks.”

The 2010 BP oil spill killed 11 people and released 5 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Though BP has spent millions on an ad campaign promoting their response to the spill, the work to identify the damage has just begun. In April, Al Jazeera reported that Gulf seafood is showing signs of drastic deformities from the spill, such as eyeless shrimp and fish riddled with lesions. Researchers have also said the oil spill contributed to a “perfect storm” for mass dolphin deaths in the Gulf.

– Ben Sherman

By Matt Kasper

Mitt Romney’s campaign says the candidate supports ending the production tax credit for wind — even while supporting billions in tax credits for the Big Five oil companies. Some are now wondering if Romney’s stance on wind will hurt him in the Midwest, where the technology has has such a positive economic impact.

A new report released by the Center for Renewable Energy at Illinois State University (ISU) shows why wind is so important to America’s heartland.

The report looked at the 23 largest wind farms in Illinois, finding that they will add almost $6 billion to local economies over their lifetimes and have resulted in the creation of more than 19,000 jobs during the construction periods. The projects will also support 814 permanent jobs in the state.

The report’s authors conclude that these benefits would not be possible without consistent federal and state policy:

A number of factors have caused the rapid growth of wind power capacity in the United States in recent years including federal and state policies… In particular, federal renewable energy production tax credits (PTC) along with state renewable electricity standards (RES) have been the biggest drivers.

The economic analysis details how wind farms benefit landowners, local governments, and school districts.

Dr. Larry Dodds, Superintendent of Ridgeview School District in McLean County, IL, said while the state government had to cut the school district’s budget by almost $750,000 over three years, the wind farms have significantly contributed to the county’s $1.8 million FY2011 tax revenue.

This economic analysis shows once again why Congress needs to extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC) due to expire at the end of the year.

Wind energy has been increasing in Illinois and across the country. According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), 35 percent of all new U.S. power capacity in the past five years has been from wind power — bringing $20 billion in annual private investment. Yet, Congress is set to let the PTC expire and possibly kill up to 37,000 jobs.

The uncertainty around the PTC is already causing turmoil within the wind industry. Last week, General Electric – the largest U.S. producer of wind turbines – blamed a decrease in sales this past quarter on Congress’ inability to extend the PTC. And the world’s largest producer of wind turbines, Vestas, says it may lay off 1,600 American workers if the credit is not extended.

Matt Kasper is a Special Assistant for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress.

A round-up of the top climate and energy news.

The price of renewable energy technologies will continue to drop, while the price of natural gas will rise, US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member John Norris said Sunday, telling state regulators and others that FERC’s goal is to aid states in staying the course on renewables. [Platts]

The League of Conservation Voters will launch a $1.5 million campaign Tuesday targeting five House Republicans who question the connection between human activity and climate change, in an effort to test whether the issue can sway voters. [Washington Post]

Former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), who is trying to build support for a carbon tax, said the facts on global warming will “overwhelm” GOP resistance to climate change action and alter the party’s stance. [The Hill]

Today the Alaska Highway faces challenges that could not have been predicted when it was built. By far the biggest is permafrost, the permanently frozen ground that underlies much of the road. [New York Times]

America’s drought threatens a recurrence of the 2008 global food crisis, when soaring prices set off riots and unrest to parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, food experts warn. [Guardian]

Oil companies are experimenting with technologies that could unlock even more reserves from what is some of the world’s heaviest and stickiest petroleum. The new technologies could also drive down the cost of producing oil in Canada. [Wall Street Journal]

New research from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen indicates that, contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO₂ follow each other closely in terms of time. [Science Daily]