Election Eve: Climate Science and the 2012 Election
Election eve: Climate Science and the 2012 Election – Redux (2)
In the last entry I wrote about the forecast of Hurricane Sandy in light of the upcoming election. That begat a short special to The Globe and Mail, a major Canadian newspaper. In that piece, I stated that the hurricane was an opportunity to bring climate and climate change back as a serious political issue. Here, at the election I want to revisit, briefly, some of the political issues discussed in these blogs over the past four years, and think a little bit about the future.
In January of 2012 I wrote an entry on Climate Science and the 2012 Election. I ended it with this:
Looking forward to the 2012 election, I don’t expect that climate change will be an oft-articulated issue. The issue out front will be jobs, and the prominent link will be made between the exploitation of fossil fuels, new jobs, and energy security. Our approach to climate change will remain quietly in the hands of those savvy enough to use the unique knowledge provided by climate projections and those post-government truth tellers who no longer have to look away.
As we made it past the debates, a few pieces started to appear about the absence of climate change in the debates and in the political discussion as a whole. (Eugene Robinson (Washington Post), and Erika Bolstad (McClatchy, in Bradenton Herald)) There have been a few good political cartoons, such as this one by David Horsey.
Figure 1: By David Horsey and from the Los Angeles Times. Here is a link to the story that accompanies the drawing.
Climate change was thrown prominently into the headlines, when Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City endorsed President Obama, citing at the top of the list Hurricane Sandy and the need to address climate change. Though to my knowledge New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has not made any recent statements about climate change, his tour of the hurricane damage with President Obama has ignited a number of anti-climate change pieces and suggestions that the governor has strayed from the conservative mantra. Hurricane Sandy has put climate change into the headlines, and perhaps made it a small issue for the election, but it is not back as a substantive political issue.
If we look back over the past 4 years, then there are a couple of moments when climate change did appear overtly on the political agenda. Most prominently was in 2009 when the House or Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey, American Clean Energy and Security Act. (my blog at the time) The bill did not go very far in the political process. It was part of the run up to the 2009 United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen. The other significant policy posturing prior to COP15 was U.S. EPA’s decision to regulate carbon dioxide. The threat of regulation is often a policy motivator in the U.S. Ultimately; however, any EPA action was burdened by strong bipartisan opposition to any action that would imperil the role of fossil fuels in the economic recovery.
After COP15 I felt that the U.S. had lost any leadership potential that it might have had on the global stage of climate policy. I also felt that we were squandering technological and economic advantage. I made a prediction prior to COP15: “I imagine that the machinations of legislation and lobbying will push climate change legislation close enough to the mid-term election that it will languish next to health care and Afghanistan and the economy. I think that there will be climate legislation, but I bet that it will be early in year 4 of the Obama administration, with its passage dependent on what Obama’s re-election looks like.”
So that prediction was wrong. What I did not anticipate was the sweeping change in the mid-term election that amplified the political attack on climate change, as well as an attack in general on the use of scientific information in policy and regulation. This attack on the use of knowledge in policy, which is complemented by assaults on very small parts of the U.S. federal budget in the name of budget cutting, only amplifies my concern that the U.S. is placing itself at technological, economic, and, now, research disadvantage. I would insert into the argument about, for instance, the bankruptcy of Solyndra, that our unstable policy on technological investment delayed U.S. development while foreign competitors built effective and market-friendly alternatives. We simply came to the game too late. The fragmented, up and down nature of both energy and climate policy hurt us everyday. For example, we are currently enamored of cheap natural gas and its potential to revitalize industry. This is a great local and short-term benefit. As far as climate policy, it does not serve as convincing reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, there are other environmental challenges with the acquisition of natural gas that will emerge rapidly in the next few years. Therefore, as far as energy policy, it is only short-term opportunism.
Despite the flurry of chatter of climate change as an issue that has followed Superstorm (nee Hurricane) Sandy, it is difficult to look across such a close election and see climate change emerging as a substantive issue on a national scale. To make progress on this issue requires support in the Legislative Branch. I expect that tribal partisanship will continue, and I hope that we spend our first quota of bipartisan behavior on stabilizing the federal budget, dealing with political-economic sequestration, and reconciling continuing resolutions. Thinking about voting, more than climate change in particular, the continued assault on science and the use of science-derived knowledge is, fundamentally, part of the threat to our thriving. This notion of American Exceptionalism takes on the hollow boosterism of Dust Bowl towns, which looked knowledge in the eyes and denied its existence. The world is changing in ways that we do not control, and it will not be good if we are the ones reliant on burning stuff for our way of life.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index
Although more Americans are beginning to worry about climate change, I agree that congress is unlikely to do anything to promote increases in energy efficiency and facilitate increased research and growth in alternative energy during the next two years, or work towards a reduction in dependence on fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry just has too much influence on Congress and the entire U.S. political system.
However, I am hoping that President Obama, whose re-election prospects look very good at the moment, will do what he can with regulatory tools.
When I think about the anti-science attitude that is so popular in the U.S, these days, I am reminded of a comment made by Isaac Asimov in a 1980 Newsweek column:
One thing I find most disheartening this election cycle--though completely predictable--is that the Right has spent the entirety of Obama's tenure complaining at the top of their lungs the second the President ever dared uttered so much as one syllable about climate change, only to now be flooding the airwaves asking why, oh why didn't Obama talk about climate change? I realize such dishonest tactics are part and parcel of the shifty, shady, underhanded, do-anything-to-get-elected style practiced by modern conservatives, but it's still very depressing.
Then again, at least more and more voters are being made aware of the practice, so we can all hope that in the future, anyone event attempting those tactics will be immediately disqualified.
This coming election is critical and to all of mankind. Should the Republicans win this election, then hope is lost that climate change will ever be addressed before it can no longer be addressed. An Obama win is not an assurance that needed actions will be taken, but it is better than a political party's policy that bans even the mention of AGW. ... Just my perspectives.
Link
Quite the case of blog owner radicalism.
Desperate times eh?
You must see the same Senate, and POTUS CHANGE coming that most of us in America feel necessary.
The time of the inverted Pyramid of climate change science has left the building. You are obviously preparing for it accordingly.
My only desire, Ossqss, is that you are keeping a diary of all your denial industry comments for your grandchildren to read later. I, personally, would like them to know the position you have taken over the years and how you ignored the science to form your biased and baseless opinions. What will they think of their grandpa, after reading your posts on these blogs?
You will one day understand that exchanging email tips/links with a radical mentor is not the only information available to you. I do feel sorry for you, but hold out hope.
I hope for real change in your climate, not just political sound bytes. We certainly need it badly.
Just look around you at what we have after 4 years of poor decision making.
Yep, that's right! I do hope for change I can believe in, along with many others.
LMAO! .... ROFLMAO!
What???? Who's e-mails are you reading? Mine, or my "mentor's"?
I never suggested that anyone could "fix" all things "stupid", nor "fix" all people that are "stupid". I am holding out hope that mankind can "fix" enough of the "stupid" concerning climate change. .... I kinda put you on the back burner concerning this. There are people out there that are open to learning the facts concerning climate change. Some refuse to acknowledge the facts on climate change and we are all well aware of this.
Bloomberg.com
Forecasters who warned of devastation before the biggest Atlantic storm in history hit the East Coast may be staring into a dimmer crystal ball four years from now.
A weather satellite system under development has struggled with delays and costs that have soared to $12.9 billion. The result is that the U.S. will probably have a blind spot in the system by the end of 2016, with one polar satellite reaching the end of its life before a replacement can be launched.
Data from those satellites are used nationally to warn of severe weather events such as Sandy, the superstorm that cut electricity to 8 million customers and killed at least 75 people in the U.S.
The replacement satellite, one of two planned for the new Joint Polar Satellite System, was scheduled to launch in 2014 and has been delayed until at least 2017, Powner said. Based on the estimated life of the polar satellite already in orbit, forecasters should anticipate a data gap of between 17 and 53 months, according to written testimony Powner delivered to Congress in June.
The coverage hole would mean forecasters would have to rely on less frequent data used to develop weather models and warn of extreme events such as hurricanes.
“The polar data is very important to tracking storm intensity, speed and direction,” he said.
See post 522 on Dr. Master's blog......
The slow rate of emissions cuts in major economies has put the world on track for "at least six degrees of warming" by the end of the century, analysts will warn today.
New research by consultancy giant PwC finds an unprecedented 5.1 per cent annual cut in global emissions per unit of GDP, known as carbon intensity, is needed through to 2050 if the world is to avoid the worst effects of climate change and meet an internationally agreed target of limiting average temperature increases to just two degrees above pre-industrial levels.
Such deep reductions in carbon intensity would be over six times greater than the 0.8 per cent average annual cuts achieved since 2000.
Read more here
Post it here.... I AM BANNED THERE....... LOL......
That idea doesn't get us below 320 ppm Co2 and restore Arctic Ice and can not be regulate SST's to anywhere between 70 and 90 degrees on demand by changing set point for any time period......My idea let's the heat out of the oven........
ScienceDaily.com
For more than 30 years, climate scientists have debated whether flood waters from melting of the enormous Laurentide Ice Sheet, which ushered in the last major cold episode on Earth about 12,900 years ago, flowed northwest into the Arctic first, or east via the Gulf of St. Lawrence, to weaken ocean thermohaline circulation and have a frigid effect on global climate.
Now University of Massachusetts Amherst geoscientist Alan Condron, with Peter Winsor at the University of Alaska, using new, high-resolution global ocean circulation models, report the first conclusive evidence that this flood must have flowed north into the Arctic first down the Mackenzie River valley. They also show that if it had flowed east into the St. Lawrence River valley, Earth's climate would have remained relatively unchanged.
"This episode was the last time the Earth underwent a major cooling, so understanding exactly what caused it is very important for understanding how our modern-day climate might change in the future," says Condron of UMass Amherst's Climate System Research Center.
Key swing state newspaper dumps Obama and endorses Romney - the first Republican it has supported since Nixon
Link
President Algae? Obama not green enough, say environmentalists
"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be." The Roving Mind (1983)Issac Asimov
"The true artist is quite rational as well as imaginative and knows what he is doing; if he does not, his art suffers. The true scientist is quite imaginative as well as rational, and sometimes leaps to solutions where reason can follow only slowly; if he does not, his science suffers."
arstechnica.com
Granted, predictions of the sea level beyond the year 2100 have wide confidence intervals, and depend greatly on variables like greenhouse gas emissions and how quickly some of the larger ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic melt. But even allowing for the world to get its emissions under control within a reasonable time frame, New York will still see the water level rise by several feet, as it did during the hurricane, within the next century or two.
A report published in Nature Climate Change in June projects that on our current emissions path, the sea level will rise 40 inches by 2100 and 7 inches per decade thereafter. At that rate, the sea level would hit the Hurricane Sandy proportions of 9 feet around the year 2200; the five foot rise will occur in just over a century. The same paper notes that even if global warming is held to 2 degrees Celsius, there's a 50 percent probability that the sea level will reach 9 feet by the year 2300—much further out in time.
Really, the year 2200?
2200? Really?????
The models, none of them, cannot reproduce what we currently observe and you post something with a target date of the year 2200?
This is a prime example as to why your attempted message is in trouble with the populous.
America knows better than that.
Here's my friend's response to the above post by me:
I'm not knowledgeable about the role of clouds in global warming, although I do know that different types of clouds at different altitudes have different dynamics. In doing cursory research on clouds and AGW/CC, I stumbled on Thayer Watkins site at San Jose State University , and have a feeling that my friend, originally from Silicon Valley, may be getting his info from this economist/mathematician's writings, available at this link.
Here's Professor Watkin's Conclusion regarding clouds and AGW/CC:
Any constructive criticisms of Dr. Watkins' critique of AGW/CC modeling and science?
It's perfectly normal to get a cold snap at this time of the year, and it will prove to be temporary, as less cold Atlantic air moves back in on Sunday, bringing cloud and some rain.
But it comes after what has been quite an exceptional few weeks of below average temperatures.
According to climatologist Philip Eden, the period from mid-September to mid-October was the coldest such period since 1974, and in the last century only 1952 and 1905 was colder.
(On a side note, it always amuses me just how many economists are accepted as climate experts, yet how few climate scientists would ever be considered reliable experts on the economy.)
Anyway, I've not got much to say in critique of Watkins' thoughts on climate or modeling, other than to say that in roughly 25 minutes of looking through his writings, I wasn't able to come across a single item that hasn't been thoroughly debunked and dismissed, often numerous times. Watkins is certainly free to cling to his misguided beliefs, and others are free to listen to him. But he is, in a word, wrong.
All you who deny it's exsistance, fine, step off to the side and let the rest of us work on the problem.
The worst that will happen, is that we save your behind, along with our own.
As an American, everyone is free to remain as ignorant as they choose to be...
i also hope ya tell them who ya voted for in 2012 when they have 30 trillion in debt to pay for and you can either say you voted for against there future problems....
Not that it matters any, but I voted for Gary Johnson (L). Congress, and Congress alone, controls the purse strings. Presidents can veto spending bills, but they can be over ridden by the Senate.
My personal opinion? It really did not matter who was elected President, when it comes down to the financial disasters this nation faces. Things were set in place long ago (the 1970's) that help assure this nation would be in deep financial troubles now. If not by actual designs to do so, then as a very unfortunate consequence of policies that were starting to form 40 years ago. There in no magic candidate that can "fix this" in any short time frame. Even Romney would have borrowed from the future with even further tax cuts. "Pay as you go" is a Republican talking point, but not a path they would actually venture down.
i have much respect that ya didn't vote for the 2 clowns that ran i think we need a serious 3rd party...
at one time millions of yrs ago they had palm trees there.....question is; how long is the climate change cycle???? hundereds of yrs , thousands or millions???
I did an initial Google search and quickly found this [LINK] recent blog post that discusses cloud cover and global warming - seems like a good place to start.
Link
FEMA stations shut down in storm, inflicting yet more misery for families affected by Superstorm Sandy last week
Nearly 60,000 customers in New York and New Jersey who lost power in storm have now lost it again
By Beth Stebner and Lydia Warren
PUBLISHED: 11:31 EST, 7 November 2012 | UPDATED: 11:57 EST, 8 November 2012
A strong Nor'easter last night dumped heavy snow on the same region that was pummeled by Superstorm Sandy last week - even forcing FEMA to shut its doors to families in need.
The federal agency shuttered its recovery centers, which were set up to offer assistance to those most affected by the monster storm, and the Staten Island office closed 'due to bad weather'.
The Nor'easter rattled the East Coast with high winds and piles of wet, slushy snow on Wednesday - leaving thousands of Sandy victims without power just after it had been restored.
Adding to the mess, the three major airports in the tri-state area closed, commuter trains slowed service, and mass transit lurched to a halt, inflicting another round of misery on the city’s residents.
Gee, we can always blame Bush:>
Messiah
washingtonpost.com
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.
“Warming is likely to be on the high side of the projections,” said John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., a co-author of the report, which was based on satellite measurements of the atmosphere.
That means 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.
I suppose many alive today will continue to deny reality, knowing (or at least assuming) they'll be dead and buried well before 2100. What they're not considering: a) the nastiest effects of climate change will be evident long before that, and b) they themselves may be gone, but their grandchildren will be here to "enjoy" the fruits of granddad's ignorance and negligence.
Leadership on this issue has to come from the bottom up with everyone wanting to alter their own life style and make do with less.
As a child our family did just fine with one vehicle. Just a little more planning on getting to work (public transportation), less 'I want it' spending, do all your shopping one day a week - plan ahead.
We always turned off the lights when leaving a room. How many people do you know leave every freaking light in the house on.
Can one person make a difference - multiply that by several million - yes.
Stop waiting for Big Brother to wave the magic wand.
It ain't gonna happen.
Gee, I never read a single line in the report that says CO2 may yet be our salvation. Would you mind highlighting this area for us?
Here is the summary of that report. Highlighting will be mine.
SUMMARY
"Peatlands cover approximately 65,600 km2 (16 %) of the Swedish land area. The available areas suitable for peatland expansion are far from occupied after ca. 12,000 years of the present interglacial. We estimate the potential extent of peatland in Sweden, based on slope properties of possible areas excluding lakes and glaciofluvial deposits. We assume no human presence or anthropic effects, so the calculation is speculative. It may have been relevant for previous interglacials.
We calculate the potential final area of peatlands in three scenarios where they cover all available land with different maximum slope angles (1−3 º) using a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The three scenarios yield potential peatland areas of 95,663 km2 (21 % of total available area), 168,287 km2 (38 %) and 222,141 km2 (50 %). The relative increases from the present 65,600 km2 are 46, 157 and 239 % respectively. The slope scenarios give CO2 uptake rates of 8.9−10.8, 18.1−22.4 and 24.6−30.5 Mt yr−1. Under global warming conditions with isotherms moved northwards and to higher altitudes, following an increase of raised bog area, the CO2 uptake rates might increase to 12.2−13.8, 24.4−27.7 and 33.5−37.9 Mt yr−1; i.e. up to 4.3−4.9 vpb of atmospheric CO2. If we make the speculative extrapolation from Sweden to all high latitude peatlands, and assume that all suitable areas with slope angle ≤ 3 ° become occupied, the global peatland CO2 sink might approach 3.7 Gt yr−1 (about 2 vpm yr−1) and potentially cause a net radiative cooling approaching 5 W m−2."
Gee, I just don't know. Looks to me like there is a whole lot of assuming, possibilities, maybes and "I don't know" comments going on here. Are you able to give us a few more certainties in this theory? Has anyone looked at what may make null and void this theory? You know, such as making null and void the assumption that there will be "no human presence or anthropic effects" part of that conversation. Are you expecting a complete die off of our species and then everything will be fine? Earth will heal itself in our absence? Well, I happen to agree with that part.
I agree that this will take a grassroots effort to accomplish anything. The first measure is to expose the denial industry for what it truly is and then grab the collars of our politicians to get their attention.
Published: Wednesday, 7 Nov 2012 | 2:51 PM ET
Text Size
By: Kristen Scholer, Giovanny Moreano
n fact, selling accelerated shortly before 11 a.m., when Apple fell into bear market territory — dropping more than 20 percent from its recent all-time high of 705.07 on Sept. 21, 2012.
Certain “Obama” sectors are among the worst performers, with heavy volume backing their declines. The Financial Sector SPDR ETF [XLF 15.50 0.0218 (+0.14%) ], for example, is having its worst day since May’s lackluster jobs report was released on June 1. The exchange traded fund is booking heavier-than-normal volume, with more than 70 million shares changing hands as of early afternoon.
Other weak sectors include coal stocks and defense names.
Well this is good news for Environ-socialism.
Link
10/19/2012 @ 11:42AM |5,275 views
Coming Soon: $2,000 Gold, $40 Silver?
The technical data is pointing to a sustained rally that could take gold to all-time highs within the next few months. MoneyShow’s Tom Aspray analyzes four top metals ETFs to find the best ones for near-term buying.
Now I know that it is impossible to reply to this massively stupid and insulting post without getting banned. So go ahead, ban me. No one will see this but you admins.
I just wonder how you admins can sit there knowing that WUG is the biggest clearinghouse for denialist propaganda in the world, enforce your censorship against anyone but the deniers, and know (or is it claim to know?) what is going on with the climate.
How do you sleep at night. Hanson has called it crimes against humanity. What do you call it "fair and balanced"?
391.03ppm
Atmospheric CO2 for October 2012
Wow!
Quite the case of blog owner radicalism.
Desperate times eh?
You must see the same Senate, and POTUS CHANGE coming that most of us in America feel necessary.
The time of the inverted Pyramid of climate change science has left the building. You are obviously preparing for it accordingly.
Well..well,well.
Seems da tree's were NOT da right height.
:)
Rawstory.com
nature.com
The mystery of the expansion of sea ice around Antarctica, at the same time as global warming is melting swaths of Arctic sea ice, has been solved using data from US military satellites.
This summer saw a record low in Arctic sea ice since satellite measurements began 30 years ago. Holland said the changing pattern of sea ice at both poles would also affect global ocean circulation, with unknown effects. He noted that while Antarctic sea ice was growing, the Antarctic ice cap – the glacier and snow pack on the continent – was losing mass, with the fresh water flowing into the ocean.
The research on Antarctic sea ice, published in Nature Geoscience, revealed large regional variations. In places where warm winds blowing from the tropics towards Antarctica had become stronger, sea ice was being lost rapidly. “In some areas, such as the Bellingshausen Sea, the sea ice is being lost as fast as in the Arctic,” said Holland.
Time to re-scale the graph.... Again....
seems like it has spiked up since bush got out of office.....
Markets eye 4 horsemen of Obama’s second term
Election Night balloons deflate quickly; huge deficits do not.
Link
The Prospects Of The Keystone XL Pipeline
Published: November 12, 2012
by NPR Staff
Among the difficult decisions facing President Obama is whether to give the go ahead for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would bring oil from Canada down to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.
Environmentalists want it blocked. They are concerned about endangering the Nebraska sand hills, under which is the largest aquifer in the country. It provides drinking water and irrigation water for several states.
Oil companies and their supporters, meanwhile, say the pipeline is in the national interest because it will create thousands of jobs and make the country more energy independent.
In January, Obama refused to make a decision about the fate of the pipeline, citing a State Department recommendation for more time to review alternative pipeline routes.
But now that the presidential election is over, environmentalists and politicians are putting renewed pressure on Obama to make up his mind. Sarah Ladislaw from the Center for Strategic and International Studies spoke with NPR's Renee Montagne about the prospects for the project.
On whether Obama will approve the pipeline
"I do think that he'll approve the pipeline for two reasons: one, because he would have to find a reason why it's against the national interest. And for a country that doesn't have an overarching climate policy, that's hard to say because we believe in reducing emissions we don't necessarily want to be importing a higher emission fuel. And the second being this has become sort of a political lightning rod to exemplify the debate between pro-oil and gas people and anti-oil and gas people in this country. And it's not the most effective way of debating those issues. So politically it would be good to get beyond it and get on to a lot of the other things that the president will have to debate within energy policy."
Link
Go back throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. CO2 levels have increased nearly every year over the past 150 years. CO2 levels don't listen to politicians. Only our actions will bring the level back down. Our inaction will see a continued rise in the CO2 level. You simply cannot take the North Carolina's legislative approach of saying anthropogenic sea level rise cannot be used for future development considerations. That is kind of like saying the state population can only be based on past population changes and no other considerations should be used to determine future development considerations. I see a developmental problem here, with a heavy accent on "mental"!
We already know that your views on AGW are politically and ideologically based. Have you tried basing your opinions solely on the science? After all, that IS what it is all about. The AGWT was never based on your, or anyone's ideology or political beliefs. It is based completely on the science. Politics and ideology only become involved in determining how we approach the problem. Not a very smart approach to determining how we handle the problem. It is really is a more do or die situation.
i thought the EPA was tougher when dems control things??? or is the EPA tougher when the repubs control things???
Viewing: 1 - 51
Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index