“Future warming likely to be on high side of climate projections,” concluded a new analysis by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). And that “higher temperature rise would produce greater impacts on society in terms of sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, and other threats.”

Many in the media have been getting this story wrong — unintentionally lowballing the future warming we should expect this century if the NCAR analysis is correct. For instance, the Washington Post writes, “the world could be in for a devastating increase of about eight degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, resulting in drastically higher seas, disappearing coastlines and more severe droughts, floods and other destructive weather.”

Not quite. The news release makes clear that amount of warming would likely occur well before 2100. Since this confusion is quite common in climate coverage, I’ll quote at length from NCAR to set the record straight:

The most common benchmark for comparing model projections is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), or the amount of warming that eventually occurs in a model when carbon dioxide is doubled over preindustrial values. At current rates of global emission, that doubling will occur well before 2100.

For more than 30 years, ECS in the leading models has averaged around 5 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius).  This provides the best estimate of global temperature increase expected by the late 21^st century compared to late 19th century values, assuming that society continues to emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide. However, the ECS within individual models is as low as 3 degrees F and as high as 8 degrees F.

At current rates of global emissions, that doubling (to 550 ppm) will occur around mid-century, and we might approach a quadrupling by 2100!

The “good news” is that inherent delays in the climate system mean we don’t hit the ECS immediately upon doubling. The “bad news” is that the ECS ignores key non-equilibrium feedbacks like the release of carbon currently locked in the frozen tundra (see “Carbon Feedback From Thawing Permafrost Will Likely Add 0.4°F – 1.5°F To Total Global Warming By 2100“).

The NCAR release continues:

“There is a striking relationship between how well climate models simulate relative humidity in key areas and how much warming they show in response to increasing carbon dioxide,” Fasullo says. “Given how fundamental these processes are to clouds and the overall global climate, our findings indicate that warming is likely to be on the high side of current projections.”

… Estimates based on observations show that the relative humidity in the dry zones averages between about 15 and 25 percent, whereas many of the models depicted humidities of 30 percent or higher for the same period. The models that better capture the actual dryness were among those with the highest ECS, projecting a global temperature rise for doubled carbon dioxide of more than 7 degrees F. The three models with the lowest ECS were also the least accurate in depicting relative humidity in these zones.

So the study didn’t find, as the Post and other media outlets assert, that “the world could be in for a devastating increase of about eight degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.” The study  found the “global temperature rise for doubled carbon dioxide of more than 7 degrees F.”

The temperature rise we would see in 2100 would depend on how much beyond (or below) 550 ppm we are at that time plus  the impact of the various feedbacks not incorporated into the ECS. If we hit 1000 ppm, warming would likely exceed 11 degrees F — possibly by a few degrees!

Of course, the first 7 F  would devastate civilization, but, even so, 14 F would still be unimaginably worse — rendering large parts of the planet’s currently habited and arable land uninhabitable, superheated dustbowls and rendering large parts of the ocean, superheated, acidic dead zones.

Here is a figure from the release that helps to explain how the NCAR scientists — John Fasullo and Kevin Trenberth — used real-world observations to come to their conclusion:

Read more

by Kiley Kroh

A season full of setbacks in Shell’s quest to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean isn’t over yet.  More than a week after preparatory drilling operations ended for the season, the company is struggling to get all of its equipment out of the Beaufort Sea as winter ice encroaches.  As Popular Mechanics reports, as of Tuesday night, the company’s Kulluk rig was still moored in the Beaufort Sea where temperatures have dropped below zero.

While the conditions don’t pose any immediate danger, they underscore the immense challenge of operating in the severe and unpredictable Arctic.  Due to the extremely harsh winter conditions and lack of a major port facility in the region, Shell’s rigs and support vessels must begin the 1,000-mile journey back to Dutch Harbor before the route becomes too ice-choked to traverse.  As the Popular Mechanics reporter on board the rig describes, just unmooring the Kulluk has proven to be a logistical nightmare:

First, there were 83 men on board, a number that was supposed to go down to just 17 for the trip south. By Alaska standards, the weather remained stable, yet flights between the rig and the company’s facilities on land at Prudhoe Bay were delayed for days at a time. Shell had contracted with PHI, Inc., a helicopter services company that is ubiquitous in the Gulf of Mexico. But the company’s Sikorsky S-92 helicopters had not been prepared with de-icing equipment, and the pilots I spoke with lacked experience flying on the North Slope.

A second issue concerned the Aiviq tug’s fuel reserves. Shell had committed to laying a containment boom out on the ocean surface during vessel-to-vessel refueling, but the seas had been too rough to do that. The tug needed to refuel before starting to haul the Kulluk.

Finally, the Kulluk was required to offload its wastewater to another vessel for eventual disposal on land, but those operations also proved vulnerable to disruption by rough seas.

The latest challenges add to a long list of hurdles Shell has faced in a drilling season plagued with technical failures, struggles with Mother Nature, and an array of voices expressing serious concern about our lack of preparedness to operate in the region. Here’s a quick review:

• In February, an independent report issued by the Government Accountability Office identified a slew of environmental, logistical, and technical challenges associated with Arctic offshore drilling and concluded Shell’s “dedicated capabilities do not completely mitigate some of the environmental and logistical risks associated with the remoteness and environment of the region.”
• In April, insurance giant Lloyd’s of London issued a report on Arctic offshore drilling, warning that responding to an oil spill in a region that is “highly sensitive to damage” would present “multiple obstacles, which together constitute a unique and hard-to-manage risk.”
• German bank WestLB announced it would not provide financing to any offshore oil or gas drilling in the Arctic, saying the “risks and costs are simply too high.”
• In July, Shell briefly lost control of its Noble Discoverer rig, which came dangerously close to running aground in Dutch Harbor.
• In September, a British parliamentary committee called for a halt to drilling in the Arctic Ocean until necessary steps are taken to protect the region from the potentially catastrophic consequences of an oil spill.
• Total SA, the fourth largest publicly traded oil and gas company in the world, became the first major oil producer to admit that offshore drilling in Arctic waters is a risky idea, saying such operations could be a “disaster” and warning other companies against drilling in the region.
• After repeatedly failing to receive Coast Guard approval for its containment barge, a critical piece of oil spill response equipment, Shell was forced to postpone exploratory drilling operations until 2013 and settle instead for only drilling two preparatory wells.
• Then just one day after beginning its long-awaited preparatory drilling operations, Shell suspended drilling due to a massive ice pack covering approximately 360 square miles drifting toward the site.

Despite the harsh realities the company faced this season, Shell has spent six years and nearly $5 billion on Arctic offshore drilling and won’t be giving up anytime soon.  Shell Alaska spokesman Curtis Smith told the Washington Post the company considers this season a success and is “looking forward to revisiting these wells as soon as we can next year.”

It is critical to note, however, that the glaring deficiencies in infrastructure and scientific knowledge that could severely impede our ability to respond to an oil spill in the area won’t be addressed for quite some time – and certainly not by next year.

Watch a short documentary on the situation:

Read more

by Danielle Baussan and Daniel J. Weiss

In the wake of Tuesday’s historic presidential victory, a newly reelected President Barack Obama can continue his efforts to protect our nation’s public health from the ravages of pollution. Voters rejected Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s high-profile campaign proposals to rely on antiquated, dirty, coal-fired power plants and overturn other new public health safeguards. The president’s new mandate provides his administration with the backing to complete unfinished Environmental Protection Agency safeguards before his inauguration on January 20, 2013, to a second term of office.

A number of vital proposed health safeguards from power plant, vehicle, and industrial pollution still linger in administrative limbo. It is unclear why these rules were held up, but now that the president will remain in the White House, this unfinished business must be completed. These actions would clear the regulatory slate, enabling the administration to address two big problems in its second term:

• Reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants and other industrial sources
• Strengthening the ozone smog health standard to provide more protection for children, seniors, and other vulnerable people

Make no mistake: The tragic fatalities and billions of dollars of damages from Hurricane Sandy are yet another warning about the imperative to further reduce climate change pollution. Building on the standards to reduce carbon pollution from motor vehicles adopted during his first term can be a major legacy of President Obama’s second term.

Here’s a list of five major and essential Environmental Protection Agency rules to protect public health that the administration should finalize immediately as a prelude to President Obama’s climate-change and pollution-reduction agenda in his second term.

Reduce carbon pollution from new power plants

In March 2012 the Environmental Protection Agency released a draft rule limiting carbon pollution from new power plants. This standard was promulgated in response to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling requiring the agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act if it found that carbon dioxide emissions endangered public health and the environment. The agency published such a finding in 2009, noting that carbon-pollution-associated climate change will increase the frequency of unusually higher temperatures and heat waves.

Increased temperatures can increase the risk for formation of ground level ozone or smog. Breathing ozone may lead to shortness of breath and chest pain; increased risk of asthma attacks; increased susceptibility to respiratory infections; need for medical treatment and for hospitalization for people with lung diseases, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and premature death. Children and senior citizens are most vulnerable to harm from smog.

The Environmental Protection Agency held several listening sessions while drafting the proposal, held two public hearings on the proposed rule, and extended the comment period to 73 days. Almost 3 million comments were sent to the agency in favor of reducing carbon pollution from both new and existing power plants—a record for an Environmental Protection Agency rule proposal. The agency is now in the midst of finalizing its rule.

The Obama administration must act quickly to create a new generation of cleaner power plants so that it can begin to develop a carbon pollution reduction regime for existing power plants.

Reduce hazardous pollution from industrial boilers

Read more

Polls have consistently shown that Americans’ understanding of global warming grows with an increase in extreme weather events. In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, that number continues to grow.

According to a new Rasmussen poll conducted a day before the election and released this morning, 68 percent of American voters said that global warming is either a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem. This represents a major increase over the last few years. In 2009, Rasmussen reported that only 46 percent of Americans believed that global warming is a problem. (Interestingly, while more people say they are concerned about the problem, there was a drop in the number of people who say it’s human caused).

The Rasmussen poll backs up others showing an increase in concern for global warming. An October poll from George Mason University and the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication showed that 74 percent of Americans understand that “global warming is affecting weather in the United States” — an increase of 5 points from a March 2012 survey. The Yale/George Mason poll also found that a majority of respondents said global warming made the summer heat wave and Midwest drought worse.

In February, a poll released by the Brookings Institute showed a 7 percent increase in the number of Americans who say that the planet is warming — with that increase influenced by extreme weather events.

The last two years have brought a stunning series of extreme weather events: two record heat waves, an historic drought, above-average destructive wildfires, and two powerful hurricanes that slammed into the East Coast. From January through August of 2012, the U.S. experienced the most extreme period for weather ever recorded, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The world’s largest reinsurance firm, Munich Re, released a report last month concluding that the growing number of weather extremes are a “strong indication of climate change.”

“Climate­-driven changes are already evident over the last few decades for severe thunderstorms, for heavy precipitation and flash flood­ing, for hurricane activity, and for heatwave, drought and wild­-fire dynamics in parts of North America.”

“In all likelihood, we have to regard this finding as an initial climate-change footprint in our US loss data from the last four decades. Previously, there had not been such a strong chain of evidence. If the first effects of climate change are already perceptible, all alerts and measures against it have become even more pressing,” said Peter Höppe, the head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research unit.

The increase in violent weather is also having a political impact. Although the presidential candidates did not discuss climate change in the final weeks of the debate, the destruction from Superstorm Sandy was the main reason why New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed President Obama:

Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be – given this week’s devastation – should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.

When I step into the voting booth, I think about the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there. The two parties’ nominees for president offer different visions of where they want to lead America….

One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.

After the election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that he will try to make climate a bigger issue during Obama’s second term.

Yesterday, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg backed Reid’s comments up: “We will keep fighting for real climate change solutions, such as investments in clean energy, public transportation, and resilient infrastructure that protects communities from extreme weather.”

In his election night speech, President Obama also indicated that he might make climate change a bigger priority.

“We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet,” said Obama to his supporters during a victory speech.

When GOP strategist Karl Rove lost his cool on Fox News Tuesday night and refused to accept the network’s decision to call Ohio for Obama and effectively end the race, it illustrated the Republican party’s belief-centric approach to this year’s election.

More importantly, it perfectly encapsulates the Republican party’s stance on climate science. Rather than trust all those scientists who use complicated models and observation, the modern Republican political pundit uses his “gut” and his “belief” to determine reality.

If you haven’t seen the full Rove clip, watch it. Or better yet, watch John Stewart’s take below, which more appropriately points out the absurdity of the incident.

“You can go through all the scientific gobbledegook you like, I don’t believe it,” said Fox’s Stewart Varney, mocking New York Times’ Nate Silver for his “scientific” approach to poll tracking — a strategy that ultimately proved dead-on correct in predicting the election results.

In post-election coverage, Fox host Megyn Kelly confronted Rove on his dismissal of the Ohio results: “Is this the math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better? One could easily replace the word “math” with “science” and sum up the party’s stance on climate change.

(Hat tip to Sam Ricketts for flagging the clip and pointing out the climate connection).

by Stephen Mulkey, President of Unity College

We are running out of time.  While our public policy makers equivocate and avoid the topic of climate change, the window of opportunity for salvaging a livable planet for our children and grandchildren is rapidly closing.

The way forward is clear, though for many confrontation-averse academics the path seems impassable.  It requires action that is unnatural to the scientifically initiated:  to fight to regain the territory illegitimately occupied by the climate change deniers.

Every day that we avoid taking action represents additional emissions, and additional infrastructure that is dependent on our fossil fuel based economy.  In our zeal to be collegial, we engage with those who are paid by vested interests to argue that our Earth is not in crisis.  When these individuals demonize public investment in alternative energy, we fail to point out how the oil industry benefited from significant taxpayer support in its infancy and continues to receive government subsidies today.  We also sidestep the thorny issue of how oil and coal, in particular, fund large-scale organized opposition efforts to deny legitimate science, winning the battle for climate change public opinion with slogans, junk science, and money.

While there is much uncertainty about how climate change will play out with respect to specific regions and weather patterns, one thing is very clear:  Our current emissions trajectory will carry us beyond 5^oC average global warming by 2100.   This will be a planet that is not consistent with our civilization and science shows us that the impact will be largely irreversible for a millennium.  I don’t know how the stakes could get any higher.

Higher education is positioned to determine the future by training a generation of problem solvers.  As educators, we have an obligation to do so. Unlike any time in the history of higher education, we must now produce leading-edge professionals who are able to integrate knowledge from multiple disciplines, and understand social, economic, and resource tradeoffs among possible solutions.  Imagine being a college president and looking in the mirror twenty years from now.  What would you see?  Would you be looking at a professional who did his or her best to avert catastrophe?  For me, the alternative is unacceptable.

Those within higher education must now do something they have largely avoided at all costs: confront the policy makers who refuse to accept scientific reality. We must be willing to lead by example. Like the colleges and universities of the 1980’s that disinvested from apartheid South African interests – and successfully pressured the South African government to dismantle the apartheid system – we must be willing to exclude fossil fuels from our investment portfolios. We must divest.

Read more

Advocates of expiring tax credits for wind power projects will greet next week’s return of Congress with a multi-front campaign for extension of the incentives in the lame-duck session. [The Hill]

Climate scientists agree the Earth will be hotter by the end of the century, but their simulations don’t agree on how much. Now a study suggests the gloomier predictions may be closer to the mark. [Washington Post]

Experts and environmental groups are wary of how to achieve a clean-energy future, and say the biggest chance of passing initiatives is by circumventing Congress entirely. [Daily Beast]

On the coast of North Carolina and at other so-called “hotspots” along the U.S. East Coast, sea levels are rising about three times more quickly on average than they are globally, researchers reported during a session devoted to sea level rise. [Our Amazing Planet]

Hot and dry conditions in parts of middle America deepened an ongoing drought in many states over the last week, according to a climatology report issued Thursday. [Reuters]

New York City will begin rationing gasoline on Friday for the first time since the 1970s, in response to a persistent gas crisis that has shuttered hundreds of gas stations and forced desperate drivers to wait in line for hours to fill their tanks. [New York Times]

European Union regulators ramped up their investigation of the Chinese solar panel industry Thursday by accusing the Chinese government of unfairly subsidizing panel makers. [New York Times]

Australia plans to join Europe in a renewed and binding pledge to reduce emissions under the Kyoto treaty, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said today before leaving later this month for negotiations in Doha, Qatar. [Businessweek]

Superstorm Sandy and this summer’s derecho that knocked out power to many Marylanders are prompting a resurgence in discussions about global climate change, former Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening said Thursday. [Washington Post]