“Greenhouse gas emissions are overwhelming the [Arctic] system,” explained the coauthor of a 2009 Science article, “Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling.” The blue line is the estimate of Arctic temperatures over the last 2,000 years, based on proxy records. The green line is the long-term cooling trend. The red line is the observed warming in recent decades.

Another day, another bad New York Times headline:

‘Unprecedented’ Greenland Surface Melt – Every 150 Years?

The New York Times then launched into a critique of:

1. NASA — for what they asserted was an “inaccurate headline” in its press release, “Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt”;
2. Most of the media coverage — for supposedly “hyperventilating” by accepting NASA’s use of the word “unprecedented”;
3. Me — for using James Hansen’s term “reticent” for one of the NASA scientists who said, “if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

I interviewed one of the country’s top climatologists, Michael Mann, by phone, and another, Gavin Schmidt, by email. The bottom line is:

1. People who live in greenhouses definitely should not throw stones
2. Ditto.
3. Not. Mann explained to me that “it’s absolutely worrisome” what’s happening in Greenland already.

Before I elaborate on all three, let me make a point about headlines, which I discuss at length in my forthcoming book “Language Intelligence.”

Headlines are important because research shows that most newspaper readers don’t get much beyond them. And NY Times headlines sweep across the internet through twitter, facebook, news aggregators and search engines.  Probably 10 to 50 times as many people see the headlines as read any substantial portion of the story.

I would define a flawed headline as one that, standing alone, is inaccurate or misleading or, as in this case, both. Indeed, this headline is so bad I’d urge the NY Times to change it. I write virtually all of the headlines on Climate Progress, and since I’ve had several thousand posts, I’ve had to change a few headlines over the years.

There’s nothing wrong with fixing a headline — most major news outlets do it on a regular basis. The only thing that would be wrong would be to leave a wrong headline unchanged.

Let’s run through why the NASA headline is fine and why the NY Times headline is not.

The NY Times asserts that “the space agency badly blew it earlier this week with this headline,” claiming:

Unprecedented means “never done or known before.” Yet the news release beneath the headline directly undercuts that description of this melting event, saying that it is rare — the last wide surface melt was in 1889, recorded in separate ice cores at the Greenland ice-sheet summit and in the northwestern part of the vast frozen expanse — and has happened roughly every 150 years over a long stretch of centuries, as recorded deeper in the ice. (Here’s a figure from a 1994 Science paper pointing to a series of such melt layers, reflecting summer warmth. Please see the postscript below for the key reference, provided by Lora Koenig of NASA.)

And yet Dr. Jason Box, a leading Greenland expert with “19 expeditions to Greenland since 1994, more than 1 year camping on the inland ice,” used the following headline on his blog, Meltfactor.org, “Greenland ice sheet record surface melting underway.” Hard for something to be a record if it isn’t unprecedented.

The most thorough response comes from NASA’s own Gavin Schmidt in a comment posted on the NY Times story (one he confirmed with me):

The NASA results are clearly unprecedented in the satellite record (and this is obviously what was being referred to), and come at the tail end of a strong increasing trend in summer surface melt area (as seen in data from the Steffen and Tedesco groups).

However, we know Greenland was warmer than today at many intervals in the past – the Early Holocene (from isotopes and borehole temperatures), the last interglacial, the Pliocene etc. so there is no claim that this is something that has never happened in the history of the planet.

Furthermore, the ‘every 150 years’ quote is very strange. The data on Summit melt layers – (discussed in the paper you reference http://www.igsoc.org/annals.old/21/igs_annals_vol21_year1995_pg64-70.pdf ) and more easily visible here:http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/DATA/alley1.html – indicates that the [1889] event was actually the only event in the last ~700 years, and there have only been 6 in the last 2000 years (4 of which were associated with the Medieval Climate Anomaly btw 750 and 1200AD). Hardly a frequently recurring ‘cycle’!

The all-Holocene average that Koenig is referring to includes the warmer Early Holocene where orbital variability was driving warmer northern high latitude summers — and which is not relevant to the expected frequency in today’s climate.

Read more

By Peter Anderson

Landfills, the current destination for a majority of our trash, are a major source of methane.

Recent accounts that have filtered back to Climate Progress from Rio+20 suggested satisfaction with a World Bank Report concluding “Integrated waste management” (which purports to prioritize recycling over landfilling), is being implemented in the developed countries.

We have been left with the impression it is just the undeveloped world landfills still present a problem.

But, stripped of its window dressing, “integrated” is just bureaucratic speak for a blank check to the U.S. disposal industry. Sagaciously, the national firms duly consider all options, and then,\ select the one that is most profitable to them (other than in green cities that insist upon better than that). Morgan Stanley Dean Witter reports that the industry’s view is: “recycling has long been the enemy of the solid waste industry, stealing volumes otherwise headed for landfills … their most promising assets.”

Fortunately, one organization did not ignore the waste sector. In 2009, the Sierra Club undertook a year-long due diligence. Peeling back the onion layers, its technical experts found that industry’s claims – that their operators captured most of the methane generated in landfills, and that landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE) miraculously converted lemons into lemonade – were as bogus as the ethanol deceit. In fact, landfills were responsible for almost five times more GHG emissions than understood. Attempts to recover energy from inherently low Btu and dirty gas only made bad things worse.

Methane is so potent a greenhouse gas, even small leaks from major generators of methane are a huge concern – depending how much escapes.

Major volume of methane generated

Over the 100 years or so that landfills generate gas, methane equivalent to roughly 472 million tons of carbon dioxide will be generated from just one year of municipal trash in the U.S. That is a third more than from heating and cooling all of the homes in the country.

Most landfill gas escapes

Read more

Using The Clean Air Act To Cut Aviation Emissions And Create An Alternative To The European Union Emissions Trading System

By Nathan Richardson, Samuel Grausz

International aviation generates more than 3 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions per year. This amount is relatively small but growing quickly, with worldwide aviation emissions projected to increase 300 percent to 700 percent by 2050. Until recently the sector faced no limits on these emissions. But starting this year, 2012, the European Union began regulating emissions from all flights to and from EU airports. Crucially, the European Union law covers both foreign and EU airlines and their emissions produced over their entire flight path, not just over EU airspace.

The new law, which is opposed by much of the aviation industry, has led to an ongoing legal and diplomatic conflict with the United States and other countries and threatens to trigger a trade war. Opponents contend that the law violates Europe’s international obligations and will substantially increase aviation costs. Supporters argue that the law is legal and will do little to harm airlines and could even benefit them in the short run. (We discuss the economic impacts in greater detail in our first Blue Skies Project report, “Is the Sky Falling for Airline Projects in the European Union?”)

Many U.S. airlines and the U.S. government have been leading opponents of the EU law. Three U.S. airlines and their trade association pursued legal claims against the EU that the European Court of Justice ultimately rejected in late 2011. The U.S. aviation industry is also calling on the federal government to challenge the EU law in international court. The U.S. government helped to convene two meetings (in Delhi, India and in Moscow) of opponents of the EU law and spearheaded a resolution in the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, declaring the EU law illegal.

Despite this opposition, the U.S. airlines and government have so far complied with the EU law, unlike China and India, who refuse to allow their airlines to comply. In retaliation, China also recently cancelled an order of airplanes from European plane manufacturer Airbus. The U.S. stance could soon change: In October 2011 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure that would prevent U.S. airlines from complying with the EU law. The U.S. Senate held hearings on the measure in June. The conflict with the EU could quickly escalate into a trade war and do significant harm to the weak U.S. and European economies.

Read more

The top two corporations on the Fortune 500 Global ranking, Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil, announced their 2012 second-quarter earnings today, bringing the total profits for three Big Oil companies to $44 billion for 2012 or $250 million every day this year. Exxon profited by $16 billion this quarter, bringing its earnings for 2012 to $25 billion.

The New York Times wrote that Exxon and Shell’s earnings “disappoint,” because energy prices unexpectedly dropped for consumers this summer. Put their profits in the appropriate context, however, and Exxon and Shell still made a combined $160,000 per minute last quarter, even though the top five oil companies benefit from $2.4 billion federal tax breaks every year.

Below we look at what Exxon and Shell spends its earnings on:

ExxonMobil:

– Exxon spent 42 percent — or $10.7 billion — of its 2012 profits buying back its stock, which enriches executives and largest shareholders.

– Exxon has spent $17 million lobbying for the past 18 months, making it the top spender in the oil and gas industry. It has spent more than $52 million lobbying for the first three years of the Obama presidency, 50 percent more than in the Bush administration.

– Exxon is sitting on $18 billion in cash reserves.

– Exxon send federal candidates $1.3 million in campaign contributions so far this campaign cycle, sending 91 percent to Republicans.

– Exxon paid just 13 percent in federal taxes last year, lower than the average American family. Right after Mitt Romney, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is the top recipient of Exxon federal contributions.

– Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson received $24.7 million total compensation.

Royal Dutch Shell:

– Shell will start drilling in the Arctic this summer, but its oil spill response plan is still behind schedule. It’s off to an inauspicious start in the Arctic, recently losing control of an Arctic drilling rig.

– Shell has spent nearly $22 million for the past 18 months, making it the second-biggest spender of the oil and gas industry.

– Shell has more than $17.3 billion in cash reserves.

– Shell bought back 15 percent of its second-quarter profits, or $900 million.

– Shell CEO Peter Voser’s compensation more than doubled in 2011 to $15.3 million. His salary increased (in euros) by 113 percent.

– In its annual report, Shell noted that the number of oil spills increased from 195 in 2010 to 207 during 2011.

While these companies already benefit from billions in tax breaks, Mitt Romney has offered the industry even more. A Center for American Progress Action analysis finds that Romney’s tax plan could lower five companies’ annual tax bill by another $2.3 billion, virtually doubling what they already receive in tax breaks.

Chevron and BP are the last two of the Big Oil companies to announce profits.

The radical decline in sea ice around the Arctic is at least 70% due to human-induced climate change, according to a new study, and may even be up to 95% down to humans – rather higher than scientists had previously thought.

The loss of ice around the Arctic has adverse effects on wildlife and also opens up new northern sea routes and opportunities to drill for oil and gas under the newly accessible sea bed.

The reduction has been accelerating since the 1990s and many scientists believe the Arctic may become ice-free in the summers later this century, possibly as early as the late 2020s.

So begins the UK Guardian story on a new open access (!) study in in the journal Environmental Research Letters, “Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent.”

This study appears consistent with a recent Geophysical Research Letters paper, “Observations reveal external driver for Arctic sea-ice retreat” (see Study: ‘Virtually’ Certain Impact Of Manmade ‘Climate Change Is Observable In Arctic Sea Ice Already Today’).

Arctic ice loss has many harsh negative consequences for humanity and the local biodiversity. First, it eliminates a primary habitat for polar bears and other species. “The survival of polar bears as a species is difficult to envisage under conditions of zero summer sea-ice cover,” concludes the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, by leading scientists from the eight Arctic nations, including the United States.

Second, a 2008 study led by David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) concluded (see “Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss“):

We find that simulated western Arctic land warming trends during rapid sea ice loss are 3.5 times greater than secular 21st century climate-change trends. The accelerated warming signal penetrates up to 1500 km inland”¦.

In other words, if it continues, the recent trend in sea ice loss may triple overall Arctic warming, causing large emissions in carbon dioxide and methane from the tundra this century (for a review of recent literature, see “Nature: Climate Experts Warn Thawing Permafrost Could Cause 2.5 Times the Warming of Deforestation!“). Such accelerated warming would also presumably accelerate the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

Third, its greatest near-term impact on humans may its effect on our own weather, as recent scientific studies suggest:

• Arctic Warming Favors Extreme, Prolonged Weather Events ‘Such As Drought, Flooding, Cold Spells And Heat Waves’
• Our Extreme Weather: Is Arctic Sea Ice Loss Partly to Blame?
• Must-See Video: Has Global Warming Caused A Quantum Jump In Extreme Weather?

So homo “sapiens” would be rather foolish to knowingly take steps that would lead to an ice free Arctic. Only brainless frogs would do that.

A good non-technical discussion on the new study can be found in the University of Reading’s news release, excerpted below:

Read more

Nancy Wimmer, via Sierra Club’s Compass

In one of the poorest countries on the planet a renewable energy service company is installing [nearly] one thousand solar home systems — a day. Not in its capital or busy urban centers, but where 80 percent of the population lives — in rural Bangladesh.

The company, Grameen Shakti, literally translates as rural energy. By the end of the year it will have installed a total of one million solar systems and now has expansion plans to install five million systems by 2015. Shakti  is succeeding where business as usual has failed, and in the year of Sustainable Energy for All, it’s a success story we should all know by heart.

As in other developing countries, the rural market is incredibly tough to serve and villagers are very poor. So how is Grameen Shakti selling them ‘expensive solar’?

Mr. Majid a food vendor

Shakti solved part of the problem by tailoring a solar system to exactly what people like the traveling food vendor, Mr. Majid needed: a 25W solar system to light his grocery cart and power his cassette player. They then coupled tailored solutions with finance providing him with a loan he could afford to repay because he doubled his monthly income by working after dusk and attracting more customers with popular Bangla music. But the problems don’t stop here. Read more

By Brad Johnson, campaign manager for Forecast the Facts.

Sign the petition asking Sec. Vilsack to tell farmers the facts about climate change.

In multiple press appearances last week, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack dodged questions about what drought-stricken farmers need to know about climate change. Speaking before the White House press corps, Vilsack refused to answer questions by Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times and Bill Plante of CBS News about the connections between climate change and the current drought.

Although the USDA has a Climate Change Program Office, Vilsack refused to talk about the science because, he said, “I’m not a scientist“:

STOLBERG: Could you talk a little bit about the drought itself? Is it very unusual? Did anyone see it coming? Is it from climate change? Is there anything you can do to prepare?

VILSACK: I’m not a scientist so I’m not going to opine as to the cause of this. All we know is that right now there are a lot of farmers and ranchers who are struggling. And it’s important and necessary for them to know, rather than trying to focus on what’s causing this, what can we do to help them. And what we can do to help them is lower interest rates, expand access to grazing and haying opportunities, lower the penalties associated with that, and encourage Congress to help and work with us to provide additional assistance. And that’s where our focus is.

Watch it:

“I’m not an expert on climate change so it probably wouldn’t be appropriate for me to respond specifically to that question,” Vilsack dodged in a Thursday interview on Marketplace.

In petitions organized by Forecast the Facts and Food Democracy Now, over ten thousand Americans are calling on Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to directly address the massive implications of manmade climate change for our entire farming sector. Many of the signatories are farmers and ranchers. Rebecca E., of Manitou Springs, CO, wrote: “My family has a family farm AND a cattle operation in Kansas. We DESERVE to know the science behind what we are being dealt by the weather!” Read more

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

The drought affecting much of the continental United States — not to mention the heat and dryness around the globe — has sent corn and wheat prices skyrocketing, scientists said today (July 25). And the current weather could be a taste of what to expect in future decades.[Live Science]

“Global warming helps make droughts hotter and drier than they would be without human influence,” said Heidi Cullen, the chief climatologist for Climate Central, a non-profit organization dedicated to communicating the science of climate change. Cullen and Stanford University food security expert David Lobell spoke to the media on Wednesday about the effect of the current drought on agriculture.

The price of corn has risen by 50 percent, to $8 a bushel, from where it was last month. And a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released today suggests that consumers can expect to see the price of meat and dairy products rise as feed for livestock becomes more expensive.

Kansas cattleman Ken Grecian sold 20 pairs of cows and calves a few weeks after drought had sucked his pastures dry and no rain was in the forecast. He sold 20 more pairs Friday. Other cattlemen throughout the middle and western part of the United States also are selling animals they can’t graze or afford to buy feed for. Beef from the animals now flooding livestock auctions will start showing up in grocery stores in November and December, temporarily driving down meat prices. But then prices are expected to rise sharply by January in the wake of dwindling supplies and smaller livestock herds. [Columbia Tribune]

Green technology is the answer to the declining fortunes of France’s auto industry, according to a new government plan to turn the sector around. Francois Hollande’s administration hopes France can carve out a space for its auto industry by driving hard into environmentally friendly cars — a sector the country’s automakers are already prominent in. The plan includes a variety of measures aimed at rewarding companies that invest in green technology and drivers who buy environmentally-friendly cars. [Washington Post]

From highways in Texas to nuclear power plants in Illinois, the concrete, steel and sophisticated engineering that undergird the nation’s infrastructure are being taxed to worrisome degrees by heat, drought and vicious storms. [New York Times]

The news that an unusually widespread melt occurred in Greenland during mid-July, when 97 percent of the Greenland ice sheet — including normally frigid high-elevation areas — experienced some degree of melting, has made international headlines, and for good reason. Such a widespread melt event has not occurred there since at least 1889, and may be yet another sign of the consequences of manmade climate change. [Climate Central]

The European Union moved to shore up the faltering price of carbon dioxide emissions on Wednesday, amid widespread concern that the current low price is failing to encourage companies to reduce their greenhouse gas output. [Guardian]

With monsoon rains late and lackluster, swaths of the India’s most fertile farmlands are parched, including areas in the south and west that grow sugarcane, corn and rice—and parts to the north that grow grain. Out of 36 meteorological subdivisions across India, 21 have received below-normal rains; rainfall for the country as a whole is 22% below average. Rain has been most plentiful on the coasts and in the hills, away from the farming heartland.[Wall Street Journal]

-Max Frankel