2012 Climate Events: The start of the term
2012 Climate Events: The start of the term
Last week I gave my summary of what I thought were the most important climate change discoveries or news of 2011. Of course, my choices were a bit arcane, but that’s me. I did not talk about the remarkable extreme weather and climate events of the last year – really last 2 years. Others have the knowledge and do that better than I, and, staying close to home, I will refer you to Jeff Master’s Blogs and Chris Burt's Blogs.
There were a couple of temperature facts that struck me: 1) The last month when the global mean monthly average was below the 20th century average was February 1985. There have been 321 consecutive months with the temperature above the 20th century average (link from NOAA), and 2) This graph from the World Meteorological Organization’s Provisional Statement of the Climate (link to statement):
Figure 1: From WMO Provisional Statement. Temperature difference (anomaly) calculated for 1961-1990 average. La Niña years are marked. La Niña years should be cooler that average based on natural variability. 2010 was the warmest La Niña year on record, and the 10th warmest year on record.
This graph shows a systematic trend of the years which should be cool, the La Niña years, getting warmer. This combination of a warming trend in the years which should be cool years and more than 25 years of global monthly means being above the long-term average are simple and compelling measurements of the warming earth. Plus remember during this time of persistent warm months, we had that period of the Sun being inactive, and hence, also being a cooling influence (an old blog to remind you of that).
This information coupled with measurements of increasing carbon dioxide emissions noted in the last entry, well I will not be teaching that we can avoid dangerous warming in the next century.
So what are the other things that have struck me as interesting going into the Winter 2012 semester at Michigan?
1) At the top of the list is a judicial ruling that the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard is, in fact, unconstitutional. It violates the interstate commerce clause that governs commerce between states. Frequently, environmental law evolves through commerce law and the assurance of open markets between the states. Ironically, at the center of the ruling is ethanol.
2) Next on the list is that in 2011 the leading U.S. export was gasoline and other refined petroleum products (from Wall Street Journal). This is a consequence of the recession, high gasoline prices, and more fuel efficient vehicles. This is significant enough that refineries in Philadelphia are likely to be closed. There are all sorts of interesting facets of this news – energy, economics, technology, and climate change.
3) Reindeer: The warming in the Arctic has been much higher than the average global warming. Here is the 2011 Arctic Report Card. This report documents large changes in the atmosphere, sea ice and ocean, and snow extent, glacier mass and permafrost. There are efforts to rescue reindeer. There is a threat because the warming temperatures means there are more ice storms, rather than the snow associated with colder temperatures. This encases their food. This combination of changes, persistent over many years, again, is indicative of cumulative changes and systematic warming.
4) That United Parcel Service has been able to reduce significantly their transportation carbon emissions, while increasing deliveries. This includes efforts on vehicle efficiency as well as attention to routing and traffic engineering. (Brown goes Green) This proves that we can make a difference on more than an individual scale, and that government investments at the margin are important for developing environmental policy. The government money mitigates risk.
5) And just to confuse us all: Manatees in Florida are threatened by cold temperatures. The deaths in 2011 were high with cold weather listed as the greatest threat. What does that say about weather, climate, climate variability and climate change? If I get the question, I will start here.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index
My dear, please read what the good Dr. Jones said, then get back to us. Thanks!
Here is what you said in post #192:
"In 2006, the warmists said snow in the Alps would be a thing in the past."
You then provide a link to an article that absolutely does not support your claim. - Please read the article again and then quote the part of the article that supports your claim.
Here is a quote from the article you linked:
"Climatologists, however, say the warming trend will become dramatic by 2020. The new studies are alarming, suggesting that the Alps are warming twice as fast as the average in the rest of the world. In 1980, 75 percent of Alpine glaciers were advancing; now, 90 percent are retreating." - Is there anything in the quote that suggests "warmists" say that snow in the Alps will be a thing of the past? ANYTHING?
Now you link to WUWT to back up what you said? You cannot even use your original link to back your claims so you you now link to a non science, factually challenged web site of a known denialist that cannot even back up what he says?
Either your reading comprehension skills are substandard, or your ability to state the facts are substandard, or your ability to be less than factual is above standard. Perhaps a blend of all three?
I sometimes question all of the things that I do, overwash12. .... sigh
Sounding like a manager of a disorganized company, and looking like one by pointing to slides as he spoke, Obama asked Congress to give him a kind of reorganization power no president has had since Ronald Reagan.
Link
"Sounds like the first honest quote in 4 yrs. Don't bode well for the EPA or reelection."
Does Dr. Jones he wear Nike's and anticipate a mothership?
"When religion is in the hands of the mere natural man, he is always the worse for it; it adds a bad heat to his own dark fire and helps to inflame his four elements of selfishness, envy, pride, and wrath. And hence it is that worse passions, or a worse degree of them are to be found in persons of great religious zeal than in others that made no pretenses to it." --William Law
Wow, took 1 year of data before you were left without a retort. My mission is done. (just kiddin)
Please don't stop, it keeps me coming back, really, you, pat, green, keeper, martini and few of the regulars are very good. Missing NRA.
Senators warn new EPA rules would raise gas prices
Senators from both sides of the aisle are warning that looming EPA regulations on gasoline could impose billions of dollars in additional costs on the industry and end up adding up to 25 cents to every gallon of gas.
The senators, in a letter this week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, urged the agency to back off the yet-to-be-released regulations. Though the EPA has not yet issued any proposal, they claimed the agency is planning to call for a new requirement to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline.
Citing the nearly $3.40-a-gallon average price of gas and the state of the economy, the senators said "now is not the time for new regulations that will raise the price of fuel even further."
They said it would be "expensive" for companies to meet the sulfur targets and cited a study that found it could add up to $17 billion in industry-wide, up-front expenses, in addition to another $13 billion in annual operating costs.
This could in turn add between 12 and 25 cents to an average gallon of gasoline "depending on the stringency of the proposed rule," they wrote.
"If the EPA does not proceed carefully with its regulations, the nationwide price of fuel could increase to the further detriment of consumers and businesses," the senators warned.
The lawmakers on the letter were: Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Mary Landrieu, D-La.; David Vitter, R-La.; and Mark Begich, D-Alaska.
The EPA did not comment on the senators' complaints.
Asked Friday for a response to the concerns, the EPA said: "EPA is still in the process of developing the proposal."
An EPA official said publicly in November that the agency was developing the so-called "Tier 3" standards proposal during a House subcommittee hearing.
Margo Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, told lawmakers that the proposal would help the country meet its "clean air goals."
"Motor vehicles and their fuel are an important source of compounds that form air pollution," she said.
Oge said reducing sulfur in gasoline would make emission control technology more effective, and "the end result would be cleaner air."
If the EPA formally issues the proposal, it would probably take more than a year for the agency to review public comments and finalize any plan.
A Senate Republican aide said the authority to tighten the sulfur standards comes from the Clean Air Act but noted that EPA has the discretion to either impose the standards or not.
The current sulfur standard is 30 parts per million in gasoline -- that's down from a prior standard of 300 parts per million. The new proposal could bring the standard down to 10 parts per million, according to the senators who wrote to Jackson
The aide said there was a "bigger benefit" when the standard dropped from 300 to 30 parts per million. But squeezing that down to 10 parts per million, the aide said, might not offer as much bang for the buck.
"They're extraordinarily expensive relative to the last round of sulfur reductions," the aide told FoxNews.com.
Link
Anyways,this prevents all of the above and prevents us from being charged more at the pump.
Link
I'm very happy that I rub you the wrong way. You sound almost hysterical when you reply to my posts. Perhaps you are hysterical because you see the handwriting on the wall. More and more of the public see through this charade termed, at this point, "climate disruption." Take your Xanax please.
Link 1
Link 2
LMAO! I am doing my utmost best to show some emphasis on all of the points that you are so absolutely incorrect on. Unfortunately, this required for me to highlight everything you claim. None of what you claimed is true. Heavy emphasis NONE!
Perhaps you should consider taking this by the pound on a daily basis?
Viewing: 201 - 214
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index