Reaction to President Obama’s Speech: A U.S. Climate Action Plan?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 9:38 PM GMT on June 25, 2013

Share this Blog
23
+

Reaction to President Obama’s Speech: A U.S. Climate Action Plan?

Here are my reaction and initial analysis of President Obama’s Speech on Climate Change (June 25, 2013). Also below are the post I made before the speech and a previous 2012 blog on Obama’s policy actions on climate change. (Just for comparison 2009 Obama Speech on Climate Change)

The president pulled together many of the challenges of climate change into the most unified position statement on climate change I have seen on the national level. He invoked the Clean Air Act and its bipartisan history as well as relying on statements about the legacy that one generation leaves for the next. He pointed out environmental actions by Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush and John McCain. He even took climate change back to the Founding Fathers with a call for acting as caretakers of the future. (It’s like he has been sitting in on my class. Perhaps, he’s one of the people leaving comments on the blog? Come forth!)

A thread throughout the speech was carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide was legally affirmed as a pollutant by the April 2, 2007, decision by the Supreme Court (at climatepolicy.org). This ruling provided a path to start dealing with climate change through regulatory means. Since the 2007 ruling, efforts to have the Environmental Protection Agency regulate carbon dioxide have waxed and waned. There have been pushes at times, always stymied by bipartisan concerns about damaging the recovering economy.

Obama made the point that the tension between the economy and the environment in general is not always a matter where it comes at the detriment of the economy. Again, he made numerous references to past policy and regulation decisions, for example, on acid rain, and pointed out that they did not lead to the demise of industry, commerce and the economy. Obama advocated the ability of American business to innovate and expose opportunity. Going further, he noted that a number of major businesses have declared climate change one of America’s greatest economic opportunities. This line of argument reveals the normally exploited environment-economy tradeoff as too simplistic, if not fundamentally spurious. Obama injected the welfare of our children into the environment-economic tradeoff.

With regard to concrete action, the most direct target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions was power plants. Power plants, notably coal-fired power plants, are the source of about 40 percent of current U.S. emissions. Many other power-plant pollutants are regulated, for example, mercury and sulfur. Power plants are relatively easy to target because they don’t move around like cars and trucks. Regulation of power plants is already occurring in some states and regions, and Obama framed this point as the federal government catching up.

Our move to natural gas was counted as a success and posed as a bridge between today’s coal and oil and future carbon-free energy sources. The need for an integrated energy policy was implied, with Obama noting that energy policy was greater than drilling for oil and and a single pipeline crossing the U.S. from Canada. Queuing up the Keystone Pipeline decision, Obama stated that the pipeline had to be in our national interest and cannot significantly enhance carbon pollution.

With regard to renewable energy, Obama emphasized wind energy. Wind energy is taking root in both politically liberal and conservative parts of the U.S. and through its local economic presence, gaining bipartisan support. He also emphasized the need to become players with Germany and China, both of which are investing heavily in renewables. This German and Chinese investment is my reason for speculating that if we don’t play in this field we will be left at economic and policy disadvantage by 2020. The president committed the government to having 20 percent of its energy from renewables. He pointed out the aggressive efforts of the Department of Defense to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to climate change.

With regard to what is happening now, Obama talked about how states are already responding to climate-related challenges and, therefore, are building responses to climate change. There is climate change that we cannot avoid, and globally, our emissions are on an upward trajectory. He specifically noted that Miami is trying to mitigate salt-water intrusion and that the Texas Water Development Board is developing strategies for dealing with extended and extreme drought. Obama also talked about rebuilding of the New York City coastline with smarter, more resilient infrastructure.

As the final leg in the proposed action plan, Obama committed to increasing the nation’s presence in international efforts to address climate change. He lauded the climate benefits of U.S.-China agreement to reduce hydrochlorofluorocarbons, alarmingly powerful greenhouse gases. He challenged the old argument that less developed countries would for some reason have to evolve through the same phases of energy use and pollution as the developed countries, calling for free trade in environmental technologies to leap past that historical polluting phase of development. He called for ambitious, inclusive and flexible approaches to addressing greenhouse gas emissions.

What was missing from the speech? We have to get a handle on agriculture and its role in climate change. It’s even more complex than greenhouse gas emissions – land-use, livestock, deforestation and emissions. And a more subtle issue, which will be relevant to Keystone Pipeline decision. If we sell our coal and facilitate the use of tar sands, are we exporting emissions? How will this national jobs issue play with the The President’s Climate Action Plan?

I expect that many will label the speech as too pragmatic, without the dramatic flare than the global warming might warrant. During the speech, one of my former students wrote me that it was amazing to hear a U.S. president talking about climate adaptation. In my earlier blog today, I wrote about language. My student’s amazement reflects the power of language. In 2007 adaptation was essentially a forbidden word in government circles; it had been for many years. I do not want to diminish or exaggerate the potential of this speech to bring climate change back into the political quagmire. The speech pulls together the climate change problem better than it has ever been pulled together at the national level, and these words of climate change, global warming, adaptation, mitigation, resilience, etc. have to be in our vocabulary if we are to take a responsible position on a sustainable future. What matters after a speech like this is follow up – the hard management that leads to real action and the initiation of policies and programs to make our response to climate change as unified as the problem is stated in Obama’s speech.


Published earlier on June 25, 2013:

Anticipating President Obama Speech: A U.S. Climate Action Plan?

Today President Obama is planning a major speech that will reintroduce climate change as a spoken-of issue into U.S. politics. There has been a lot of pre-speech publicity, for example Youtube and the speech will be broadcast live, currently scheduled at 1:55 PM Eastern. There has already been some information released including The President’s Climate Action Plan and a shorter Fact Sheet.

I will take The President’s Climate Action Plan as a logical outline for the speech. There are three major bullets in the outline:

Cut Carbon Pollution in America

Prepare the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change

Lead International Efforts to Combat Global Climate Change and Prepare for its Impacts

The outline covers mitigation, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation, anticipating and responding to the impacts of climate change. Looking more deeply into the plan, Obama is resetting some of the political battles that have proved and will be most contentious, for example, reduction of subsidies for fossil fuels (conservative support), and public sector financing of clean energy. This will queue up the issues of the Keystone Pipeline, which will remain a complex and difficult decision for the near future. The Keystone Pipeline will be viewed as a measure of the seriousness of administration’s commitment.

Before the speech, I expect its most important aspect will be reintroducing the language of climate change into the political process ( earlier blog on language barriers). To continue to avoid the words climate, climate change and adaptation is damaging to our country’s credibility, economic well-being, technological development, our environment and our future. If we do not take a leadership position, I suspect that by 2020 we will be put into a distinct policy disadvantage as emerging use of renewables in other large economies becomes both economical and influential in the development of trade policy. We are living in a world where the words climate and climate change are scrubbed from documents and they are the legislative targets in the disruptive and destructive ongoing political tribalism. Though a single speech will not end this tribalism, it will start to break down the language barriers, especially as the impacts of weather, climate, climate variability and climate change become more apparent to more and more people.

The last long piece I wrote on policy was just prior to the 2012 election. I reproduce some of this below in anticipation of examining the speech after it is delivered.

Excerpts from Election eve: Climate Science and the 2012 Election – Redux (2)

Originally posted November 4, 2012

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 hurts us every day. 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

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 634 - 584

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21Blog Index

Quoting 624. zampaz:

"Since when did the Arctic represent our Global climate?"
I must have said that. Pardon me for my silliness.
By all means, ignore melting at the poles as being indicative of warming. It must the the Heat Content Discrepancy discussed at Skeptical Science:


Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?


Isn't Bob Tisdale the boy working at the Pet Shop around the corner from the WUWT magic emporium?
Nice boys, but neither my Polar Bear or Penguin seem to be moving at the moment.


Come up with something original or I shall be forced fact check and taunt you a second time.


So posting a YouTube video is your definition of taunting me.

I see.

I'll keep that in mind when you decide to taunt me again.

None of what you posted actually addresses the facts.

The facts are that,

-Ocean Heat Content is an uncertain dataset that we should take with caution.

-The recent hiatus period is unusual in the context of the last 30-40 years.

-Removing ENSO still produces a flat line over the last 15 years.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 632. Snowlover123:


So what exactly has Chylek published that makes him a crackpot?

I love it how you guys focus on the Person who created the first chart, while ignoring the source for the data in the chart. That is ten times more important. NOAA's data shows that over the last 12-13 years has seen a temperature change of -0.02 Degrees C per decade, and such a rate over a long period of time has not been seen since the early-1970s. You can bash Bob Tisdale all you want, but the source of the data will remain the same.

Also, I love it how none of you even mentioned the ENSO corrected RealClimate chart I posted, which shows the same exact thing; a flat line in recent years. ENSO is not causing this recent flatline.

I also question how much you actually believe the bolded. You called Chylek a crackpot, because he, along with his research team produced strong evidence for a large natural oscillation superimposed on the long term temperature trend. Scott agrees that there are natural cycles superimposed on the long term trend.

So where is Chylek a crackpot?



The overall trend in the second chart over the whole time period is upwards so it is more believable... The other one belongs in the trash bin...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 625. Neapolitan:
I'm not "dismissing a paper I don't agree with"; I'm dismissing a scientist who's become a bit of a crackpot. Frankly, I tend to ignore those who have gained reputations for spouting willful nonsense, which Chylek has done provably and repeatedly (Bob Tisdale, too, as that silly top chart in #616 shows). There's only so much time in the day; why devote it to fools such as them?

To the main point: there are certainly natural factors playing a part in most everything. But there is not a credible scientist out there who believes for one moment that natural variability is going to somehow overwhelm greenhouse warming and thus cause the Arctic to start "cooling". That's because there's no mechanism


So what exactly has Chylek published that makes him a crackpot?

I love it how you guys focus on the Person who created the first chart, while ignoring the source for the data in the chart. That is ten times more important. NOAA's data shows that over the last 12-13 years has seen a temperature change of -0.02 Degrees C per decade, and such a rate over a long period of time has not been seen since the early-1970s. You can bash Bob Tisdale all you want, but the source of the data will remain the same.

Also, I love it how none of you even mentioned the ENSO corrected RealClimate chart I posted, which shows the same exact thing; a flat line in recent years. ENSO is not causing this recent flatline.

I also question how much you actually believe the bolded. You called Chylek a crackpot, because he, along with his research team produced strong evidence for a large natural oscillation superimposed on the long term temperature trend. Scott agrees that there are natural cycles superimposed on the long term trend.

So where is Chylek a crackpot?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ah, the old when-I-refuse-to-understand-the-science- I -immediately-think-it's-a-conspiracy...

...never gets old.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
630. yoboi
Quoting 617. FLwolverine:



Oh, good! I've been waiting for a chance to use this. Why You Sound So Stupid When You Say Global Warming As Stopped

Scientists know that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are increasing in the atmosphere. They know that this increases the amount of sunlight that gets converted to heat, staying around on the Earth longer, as opposed to going into outer space. They know that this heat is distributed among several parts of the earth approximately as follows:

- Ocean 93.4%
- Atmosphere 2.3%
- Everything else 4.3%
Everything else includes the land surface of the earth and various ice sheets and so on.

Over the last several decades the overall temperature of the atmosphere, that 2.3% part of the equation, has gone up on average. Given any reasonable time period, i,e 10 or 15 years, it really has never gone down, though it has failed to go up very much now and then. The overall trend is up.

However, we have really good measurements (for the last several decades) for the Atmosphere, and for the surface of (but not the deeper parts of) the Ocean. This means that when the heat goes up more than expected in the Atmosphere, which it has done now and then, we can guess that this involves less heat going into the Ocean or to those other things. Conversely, when the temperature goes up less in the atmosphere than expected, we can guess that the “missing” heat went into the Ocean or one of the other places heat might go. For example, the heat in the atmosphere has not gone up over the last few years as much as predicted by drawing a straight line covering the last few decades, but instead,

- Greenland ice cap has lost a lot of ice (which takes up heat).
- The Arctic sea has lost a lot of ice (which takes up heat).
- The few measurements in the deep ocean that we have show that it has gained a lot of heat.
It all makes sense and pretty much fits together, but there are many who claim that “global warming has plateaued” or that there is a “hiatus” in global warming.

OK here’s an analogy. You make $50,000 a year. You pay out 10,000 in taxes. Then, suddenly, taxes go up and now you are paying $20,000 a year in taxes. Would you claim that $10,000 a year has disappeared into thin air? No. The money still exists. Its just not you YOUR pocket (you are the Atmosphere) It is now in the Government’s pocket (the Government is the Ocean). And, in fact, since you are so small and the Government is so big, this shift in heat, er, money, will be noticed by you (the person) a lot, but very little by the big giant government.
...................
We don’t have time any more to mess around with denialism, false balance, and willful ignorance. Get on board or get a D, or even an F.


If I get on board then what????? Using your analogy making 50,000 a yr and I found where my 10,000 increase in taxes went to support a scam for carbon credits that I will never see again......it will be used to line the pockets of the rich.....I guess i can hope for a bright side.....maybe they will do an air show with all their fancy lear jets.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 605. Snowlover123:


Misrepresentation. Chylek is a highly cited scientist with many, many articles in the scientific literature. The above is typically your standard response to dismiss a paper that you don't agree with. It's actually well understood that when the Arctic warms, the Antarctic cools. If this correlation were to continue, in 10-20 years, Antarctica should be warming fairly quickly, while the Arctic should be cooling.

I encourage you to heed your last suggestion. Expand your horizon. I agree that there is an anthropogenic factor, you think that the anthropogenic factor is the only factor.


The anthropogenic factor seems to be the larger forcing at work. No one is denying natural forcings or the effect they may have. The data points to anthropogenic forcings as being larger than the natural forcings.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2692
Interesting, I seem to be quoting myself.
Well that was boring from beginning to end.
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 871
WUWT? My blog posts seem to be misbehaving.
Apologies everyone!
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 871
Quoting 625. Neapolitan:
I'm not "dismissing a paper I don't agree with"; I'm dismissing a scientist who's become a bit of a crackpot. Frankly, I tend to ignore those who have gained reputations for spouting willful nonsense, which Chylek has done provably and repeatedly (Bob Tisdale, too, as that silly top chart in #616 shows). There's only so much time in the day; why devote it to fools such as them?

To the main point: there are certainly natural factors playing a part in most everything. But there is not a credible scientist out there who believes for one moment that natural variability is going to somehow overwhelm greenhouse warming and thus cause the Arctic to start "cooling". That's because there's no mechanism

How about really big oscillating fans in Alaska and Siberia?
Or better still, Man Made Snow!
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 871
Quoting 605. Snowlover123:


Misrepresentation. Chylek is a highly cited scientist with many, many articles in the scientific literature. The above is typically your standard response to dismiss a paper that you don't agree with. It's actually well understood that when the Arctic warms, the Antarctic cools. If this correlation were to continue, in 10-20 years, Antarctica should be warming fairly quickly, while the Arctic should be cooling.

I encourage you to heed your last suggestion. Expand your horizon. I agree that there is an anthropogenic factor, you think that the anthropogenic factor is the only factor.
I'm not "dismissing a paper I don't agree with"; I'm dismissing a scientist who's become a bit of a crackpot. Frankly, I tend to ignore those who have gained reputations for spouting willful nonsense, which Chylek has done provably and repeatedly (Bob Tisdale, too, as that silly top chart in #616 shows). There's only so much time in the day; why devote it to fools such as them?

To the main point: there are certainly natural factors playing a part in most everything. But there is not a credible scientist out there who believes for one moment that natural variability is going to somehow overwhelm greenhouse warming and thus cause the Arctic to start "cooling". That's because there's no mechanism
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13277
Quoting 616. Snowlover123:


Since when did the Arctic represent our Global climate?

The Global Surface Temperature Rate of Increase has definitely slowed down, and over the last 12-13 years, it has actually gone negative.



Even when correcting for ENSO, you still get an extremely flat line in recent years.


"Since when did the Arctic represent our Global climate?"
I must have said that. Pardon me for my silliness.
By all means, ignore melting at the poles as being indicative of warming. It must the the Heat Content Discrepancy discussed at Skeptical Science:


Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content - Is There a Discrepancy?


Isn't Bob Tisdale the boy working at the Pet Shop around the corner from the WUWT magic emporium?
Nice boys, but neither my Polar Bear or Penguin seem to be moving at the moment.


Come up with something original or I shall be forced fact check and taunt you a second time.
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 871
Quoting 617. FLwolverine:



Oh, good! I've been waiting for a chance to use this. Why You Sound So Stupid When You Say Global Warming As Stopped

Scientists know that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are increasing in the atmosphere. They know that this increases the amount of sunlight that gets converted to heat, staying around on the Earth longer, as opposed to going into outer space. They know that this heat is distributed among several parts of the earth approximately as follows:

- Ocean 93.4%
- Atmosphere 2.3%
- Everything else 4.3%
Everything else includes the land surface of the earth and various ice sheets and so on.

Over the last several decades the overall temperature of the atmosphere, that 2.3% part of the equation, has gone up on average. Given any reasonable time period, i,e 10 or 15 years, it really has never gone down, though it has failed to go up very much now and then. The overall trend is up.

However, we have really good measurements (for the last several decades) for the Atmosphere, and for the surface of (but not the deeper parts of) the Ocean. This means that when the heat goes up more than expected in the Atmosphere, which it has done now and then, we can guess that this involves less heat going into the Ocean or to those other things. Conversely, when the temperature goes up less in the atmosphere than expected, we can guess that the “missing” heat went into the Ocean or one of the other places heat might go. For example, the heat in the atmosphere has not gone up over the last few years as much as predicted by drawing a straight line covering the last few decades, but instead,

- Greenland ice cap has lost a lot of ice (which takes up heat).
- The Arctic sea has lost a lot of ice (which takes up heat).
- The few measurements in the deep ocean that we have show that it has gained a lot of heat.
It all makes sense and pretty much fits together, but there are many who claim that “global warming has plateaued” or that there is a “hiatus” in global warming.

OK here’s an analogy. You make $50,000 a year. You pay out 10,000 in taxes. Then, suddenly, taxes go up and now you are paying $20,000 a year in taxes. Would you claim that $10,000 a year has disappeared into thin air? No. The money still exists. Its just not you YOUR pocket (you are the Atmosphere) It is now in the Government’s pocket (the Government is the Ocean). And, in fact, since you are so small and the Government is so big, this shift in heat, er, money, will be noticed by you (the person) a lot, but very little by the big giant government.
...................
We don’t have time any more to mess around with denialism, false balance, and willful ignorance. Get on board or get a D, or even an F.


Apologize to our blog mule....








....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Bob Tisdale


Since many of the visitors here are looking for more information about me—I can’t understand why—I’ve added the following:

I have been studying manmade global warming/climate change/climate disruption/insert latest catch-name here for a decade or two. I understand the hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse gas-driven warming of surface temperatures and of the global oceans. In fact, early on, I was a true-blue believer in the assumption that man was responsible for most of the recent global warming. A TV special in the early 1990s sparked my interest. In it the camera followed a climate scientist into a glass-walled room with a massive mainframe computer, and the scientist said it took months for the computer to simulate global climate for some period of time—whether the computer was simulating climate for decades, centuries or millennia, I don’t recall. Whatever the time span, the computer sat number-crunching for months to give the scientist an output. I was impressed. The climate scientist, if memory serves, was Dr. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).

My skepticism began with the ever-increasing number of reports of projected climate catastrophes. That was, from my recollection, sometime in the early 2000s, about the time I retired. Many of the predictions of impending disasters sounded extremely familiar, but earlier they’d been blamed on something else. If you’ll recall, starting in the late 1990s, everything was blamed on El Niño. Remarkably, many of the weather events now being hyped as greenhouse gas-related catastrophes by climate scientists and the media had previously been blamed on El Niño. It was as though the climate scientists didn’t like being upstaged by Mother Nature’s son El Niño, so the scientists tried and have been pretty successful, with the help of like-minded reporters, at redirecting blame to manmade greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. The blame game has reached such epidemic proportions that there are people who now actually believe global warming is causing the extreme weather events, including, depending on the season, heat waves, cold spells, flooding, drought, blizzards, reduced snow cover, etc.


Link





...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 616. Snowlover123:


Since when did the Arctic represent our Global climate?

The Global Surface Temperature Rate of Increase has definitely slowed down, and over the last 12-13 years, it has actually gone negative.



Even when correcting for ENSO, you still get an extremely flat line in recent years.



Not NOAA?

About Bob Tisdale
Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.

May I delete or move to the Trash Bin?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 615. zampaz:

"Because it's obvious that the earth hasn't warmed for the past two decades..."
It's not that obvious to me given the NASA imagery of Arctic sea Ice loss and overall ice volume loss at both poles.


That is a common misconception by the naysayers...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 614. Snowlover123:


No, I didn't say that.

I'm pointing out the differences from last year.


Good.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 599. CEastwood:
Because it's obvious that the earth hasn't warmed for the past two decades, "scientists" claim that the "missing" heat is hundreds of feet below the surface of the oceans. They have to put the heat somewhere because SSTs haven't increased either. The more that the subsurface temperatures are investigated; the more we realize that this is yet another bogus claim by said "scientists".

Link



Oh, good! I've been waiting for a chance to use this. Why You Sound So Stupid When You Say Global Warming As Stopped

Scientists know that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are increasing in the atmosphere. They know that this increases the amount of sunlight that gets converted to heat, staying around on the Earth longer, as opposed to going into outer space. They know that this heat is distributed among several parts of the earth approximately as follows:

- Ocean 93.4%
- Atmosphere 2.3%
- Everything else 4.3%
Everything else includes the land surface of the earth and various ice sheets and so on.

Over the last several decades the overall temperature of the atmosphere, that 2.3% part of the equation, has gone up on average. Given any reasonable time period, i,e 10 or 15 years, it really has never gone down, though it has failed to go up very much now and then. The overall trend is up.

However, we have really good measurements (for the last several decades) for the Atmosphere, and for the surface of (but not the deeper parts of) the Ocean. This means that when the heat goes up more than expected in the Atmosphere, which it has done now and then, we can guess that this involves less heat going into the Ocean or to those other things. Conversely, when the temperature goes up less in the atmosphere than expected, we can guess that the “missing” heat went into the Ocean or one of the other places heat might go. For example, the heat in the atmosphere has not gone up over the last few years as much as predicted by drawing a straight line covering the last few decades, but instead,

- Greenland ice cap has lost a lot of ice (which takes up heat).
- The Arctic sea has lost a lot of ice (which takes up heat).
- The few measurements in the deep ocean that we have show that it has gained a lot of heat.
It all makes sense and pretty much fits together, but there are many who claim that “global warming has plateaued” or that there is a “hiatus” in global warming.

OK here’s an analogy. You make $50,000 a year. You pay out 10,000 in taxes. Then, suddenly, taxes go up and now you are paying $20,000 a year in taxes. Would you claim that $10,000 a year has disappeared into thin air? No. The money still exists. Its just not you YOUR pocket (you are the Atmosphere) It is now in the Government’s pocket (the Government is the Ocean). And, in fact, since you are so small and the Government is so big, this shift in heat, er, money, will be noticed by you (the person) a lot, but very little by the big giant government.
...................
We don’t have time any more to mess around with denialism, false balance, and willful ignorance. Get on board or get a D, or even an F.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1900
Quoting 615. zampaz:

"Because it's obvious that the earth hasn't warmed for the past two decades..."
It's not that obvious to me given the NASA imagery of Arctic sea Ice loss and overall ice volume loss at both poles.


Since when did the Arctic represent our Global climate?

The Global Surface Temperature Rate of Increase has definitely slowed down, and over the last 12-13 years, it has actually gone negative.



Even when correcting for ENSO, you still get an extremely flat line in recent years.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 599. CEastwood:
Because it's obvious that the earth hasn't warmed for the past two decades, "scientists" claim that the "missing" heat is hundreds of feet below the surface of the oceans. They have to put the heat somewhere because SSTs haven't increased either. The more that the subsurface temperatures are investigated; the more we realize that this is yet another bogus claim by said "scientists".

Link

"Because it's obvious that the earth hasn't warmed for the past two decades..."
It's not that obvious to me given the NASA imagery of Arctic sea Ice loss and overall ice volume loss at both poles.
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 871
Quoting 613. cyclonebuster:


LOL you are funny you think that we think it has to break the records progressively year after year....


No, I didn't say that.

I'm pointing out the differences from last year.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 607. Snowlover123:


It's far from breaking any sort of record this year. The GIS being cold has nothing to do with Sea Ice. It's because of the consistent +NAO there over the past few weeks or so.


LOL you are funny you think that we think it has to break the records progressively year after year....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 610. cyclonebuster:


Excuses excuses....An enormous amount of heat input has to be added to the worlds oceans to make the smallest temperature increase...


This was the total number of measurements from the Deep Ocean in 1985 in red.



Even with that enormous amount of heat, it still only changes the Ocean Temperature by very slight amounts, thus making it a very small signal to try to measure and detect.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 606. Snowlover123:


Those are not Sea Surface Temperature Changes. They are Heat Content changes. Heat Content data gets really murky especially early in the dataset when there were very few observations to quantify the Heat Content changes. Considering the temperature changes in the ocean are incredibly small, it makes it even more difficult to accurately measure Heat Content.


Also 0-700 meters sounds like the surface to me...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 606. Snowlover123:


Heat Content data gets really murky especially early in the dataset when there were very few observations to quantify the Heat Content changes. Considering the temperature changes in the ocean are incredibly small, it makes it even more difficult to accurately measure Heat Content.


Excuses excuses....An enormous amount of heat input has to be added to the worlds oceans to make the smallest temperature increase...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 608. ScottLincoln:

Heck, he seems to have misunderstood the paper he quoted to back up his claim (I know what you're thinking... him? not him, he's never done that!). The paper's own abstract clearly talks about de-trending the Arctic temperatures to see climate variability. A natural cycle causes faster and slower trends on top of the long term climatic trend!? Groundbreaking!


I misunderstood that the paper was talking about detrended temperatures? Really?

From Post 587:

"We can see this with Detrended Arctic and Antarctic temperatures."

So no, either you misread my post, or are trying to spread falsehoods. Which is it?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 595. Neapolitan:
It's not "most here" who disagree with you; it's most credible scientists. And I have to suggest once again that you'd be doing your own credibility a huge favor if you began researching and quoting studies from among the overwhelming majority who support climate change theory, rather than confining yourself to only what the known denialists such as it's-all-natural, global-warming-is-a-blessing folks such as Chylek have to say about things. C'mon, expand your horizons; you'll be amazed by the truth...

Heck, he seems to have misunderstood the paper he quoted to back up his claim (I know what you're thinking... him? not him, he's never done that!). The paper's own abstract clearly talks about de-trending the Arctic temperatures to see climate variability. A natural cycle causes faster and slower trends on top of the long term climatic trend!? Groundbreaking!
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2876
Quoting 594. cyclonebuster:


Wait till the sea ice has lower extent..Are you serious? You expect it break records every year?


It's far from breaking any sort of record this year. The GIS being cold has nothing to do with Sea Ice. It's because of the consistent +NAO there over the past few weeks or so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 601. cyclonebuster:


Tell NOAA global SST's have not been increasing...
You know more than NOAA?






...


Those are not Sea Surface Temperature Changes. They are Heat Content changes. Heat Content data gets really murky especially early in the dataset when there were very few observations to quantify the Heat Content changes. Considering the temperature changes in the ocean are incredibly small, it makes it even more difficult to accurately measure Heat Content.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 595. Neapolitan:
It's not "most here" who disagree with you; it's most credible scientists. And I have to suggest once again that you'd be doing your own credibility a huge favor if you began researching and quoting studies from among the overwhelming majority who support climate change theory, rather than confining yourself to only what the known denialists such as it's-all-natural, global-warming-is-a-blessing folks such as Chylek have to say about things. C'mon, expand your horizons; you'll be amazed by the truth...


Misrepresentation. Chylek is a highly cited scientist with many, many articles in the scientific literature. The above is typically your standard response to dismiss a paper that you don't agree with. It's actually well understood that when the Arctic warms, the Antarctic cools. If this correlation were to continue, in 10-20 years, Antarctica should be warming fairly quickly, while the Arctic should be cooling.

I encourage you to heed your last suggestion. Expand your horizon. I agree that there is an anthropogenic factor, you think that the anthropogenic factor is the only factor.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Climate-Denying Libertarianism

A bigger crisis facing “libertarianism” now – and why the ideology is particularly dangerous – is the existential threat from global warming and the urgent need for collective government action on a worldwide scale to reduce human output of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping chemicals.

The “libertarian” response to the overwhelming scientific consensus on this life-threatening reality has been either to deny the facts or to propose implausible “free market” solutions that would barely dent the crisis. Some dismiss the threat in mocking tones as some kind of “statist” conspiracy. Typical were sarcastic comments by the Independent Institute’s Mary Theroux, writing: “The climate crisis is real, it’s here, and it’s time for absolute power for Obama!”

There’s also lots of sophistry and quibbling about the science. The preferred “libertarian” position adopts the pretense that the release of carbon dioxide by human activity contributes little or nothing to climate change.

Other “libertarians” accept the science but still can’t bring themselves to recognize that a coordinated government response is needed. Anti-government ideology trumps even the possible destruction of life on the planet, a very real possibility given the likelihood of mass dislocations of populations and the availability of nuclear weapons.

The “libertarians” are further hampered in their thinking about global warming by the fact that many of their principal funders are major energy extractors – and it’s nearly impossible to get people to think rationally about a problem when their paychecks depend on them not doing so.

Most notably the billionaire Koch Brothers who own Koch Industries, a giant oil and natural gas company, have lavished millions upon millions of dollars on “think tanks,” academic centers and Tea-Party-style activist groups to raise doubts about climate-change science and to deflect public demands for action.



more at consortiumnews.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
A "Fistful Of Dollars" is all it will take so "We Can Fight" the ever warming effects that fossil fuel GHG's have on "Gods Good Earth"... Who would like to join me in my endeavor?





Perhaps you CEastwood???




...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
By the way NOAA needs to rescale the above graph...Upwards....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 599. CEastwood:
Because it's obvious that the earth hasn't warmed for the past two decades, "scientists" claim that the "missing" heat is hundreds of feet below the surface of the oceans. They have to put the heat somewhere because SSTs haven't increased either. The more that the subsurface temperatures are investigated; the more we realize that this is yet another bogus claim by said "scientists".

Link


Tell NOAA global SST's have not been increasing...
You know more than NOAA?






...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
And another fracking projects hopefully bites the dust in Europe (as in Poland some days earlier). Good!

Repsol Delays First Shale-Gas Project in Spain After Frack Ban
By Patricia Laya - Jul 4, 2013 10:23 AM GMT 0200

Repsol SA (REP), Spain%u2019s largest oil producer, delayed starting to explore for shale gas in the north, where a local government has outlawed drilling projects that use water-intensive hydraulic fracturing.

The company had targeted July to begin seismic studies at its Luena project that extends over 290 square miles across the Cantabria region, where energy trade groups say Spain%u2019s richest shale gas deposits lie. Repsol%u2019s first domestic shale search can%u2019t begin yet because several %u201Crequirements%u201D haven%u2019t been met, according to a company official who requested anonymity, as no announcement has been made. He declined to give specifics.

In April, the Cantabrian government enacted Spain%u2019s first ban on the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, blaming risks of polluting drinking water. The rule blocks companies seeking to blast water into shale deposits within the region%u2019s boundaries, though it%u2019s less clear how projects extending to other regions are affected. Luena stretches from Cantabria to Castille & Leon, a situation that normally would be regulated by the nation%u2019s Industry Ministry, exploration companies say.

Spain has enough prospective natural-gas resources to satisfy more than 70 years of domestic demand, according to the Spanish fossil fuels trade group Aciep. That has prompted government proposals to reinforce environmental safety measures while at the same time ease the way for international oil and gas companies such as Canada%u2019s BNK Petroleum Inc. (BNK) and San Leon Energy Plc (SLE) to produce the commodity, cutting Spain%u2019s dependence on imports and potentially lowering local energy prices. [more see link above]...
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 43 Comments: 5020
Because it's obvious that the earth hasn't warmed for the past two decades, "scientists" claim that the "missing" heat is hundreds of feet below the surface of the oceans. They have to put the heat somewhere because SSTs haven't increased either. The more that the subsurface temperatures are investigated; the more we realize that this is yet another bogus claim by said "scientists".

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 597. Patrap:
Hail covers the ground 2 ft deep in Santa Rosa NM Weds.



www.facebook.com/SantaRosaFireDepartment



What the hail happened?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Hail covers the ground 2 ft deep in Santa Rosa NM Weds.



www.facebook.com/SantaRosaFireDepartment
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
We know the sky is falling.
We know we need to prepare.
We do nothing.
The money just isn't there.

Climate Change and Infrastructure, Urban Systems, and Vulnerabilities
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 871
Quoting 587. Snowlover123:


I'm personally not that alarmed by it. I'm sure most here will disagree with me, but there is actually some pretty solid evidence that a pretty large fraction of the recent temperature change in the Arctic is cyclical.



We can see this with Detrended Arctic and Antarctic temperatures. This is the bi-polar "see-saw" over the 20th-Century. When one pole warms, the other one cools over multidecadal periods. The Arctic generally shows more variability than the Antarctic in the dataset.

From Chylek et al. 2010.

These periods generally correlate with the PDO/AMO.
It's not "most here" who disagree with you; it's most credible scientists. And I have to suggest once again that you'd be doing your own credibility a huge favor if you began researching and quoting studies from among the overwhelming majority who support climate change theory, rather than confining yourself to only what the known denialists such as it's-all-natural, global-warming-is-a-blessing folks such as Chylek have to say about things. C'mon, expand your horizons; you'll be amazed by the truth...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13277
Quoting 591. Snowlover123:
What a difference between this year and last year for the GIS.



Wait till the sea ice has lower extent..Are you serious? You expect it break records every year?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Al Gore: Is There a Nielsen-veto of Inconvenient Truths?

Our planet's climate is rapidly changing and threatening the future of our civilization, yet mainstream media outlets and many conservatives continue to ignore the problem. Why?

Is it because they dial-group their news coverage? Have entertainment values corrupted the honored role of news in our democracy?

Do aggrieved, self-polarizing reactionaries now have a Nielsen-veto over objective reporting of inconvenient truths?

The best television coverage of President Obama's climate speech Tuesday wasn't on Fox, CNN, or even MSNBC. It was on the Weather Channel, the only network to carry the address live and to treat it as the major development that it was. Before Obama spoke, the network carried a special, "The Science Behind Climate Change." After the speech, the network ran more analysis, including a discussion of ways to reduce carbon emissions.



HuffingtonPost.com




What the Weather Channel Knows—and John Boehner Doesn't

NewRepublic.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948


Arctic Sea Ice Extent is still tracking 2008/2009 pretty closely on AMSR2.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
What a difference between this year and last year for the GIS.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
GMO & Pesticide Experiments in Hawaii

The vibrant ecosystems and biodiversity of the Hawaiian Islands are under serious attack by the unrestrained growth of the biotech industry. The average tourist coming to Hawaii to enjoy a vacation, get married or possibly invest in a time share isn't aware of the chemical contamination taking place due to unregulated GMO experiments and heavy pesticide use on the islands.

In the mid-1990s, the sugarcane industry collapsed and vacated much of the agricultural land on Kauai. That agricultural land is now either owned by the State of Hawaii or several private landholders. All of which lease the land out to the biotech industry. Specifically, the Big Six; Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, BASF, Pioneer and Bayer.

What is taking place generally in GMO testing activities is research that involves the transferring of DNA from one species to another. This may include human genes introduced to crops such as corn, soy, rice and sugarcane and genetically engineered crops for use in the pharmaceutical industry. The end result is an organism (plant or animal) that would never occur in nature. For the farmers on Kauai that practice organic and sustainable agricultural practices, their crops are at risk for contamination. For the ecosystem(s) of the Hawaiian Islands, biodiversity is being threatened. For the people that live and work in the communities close to the GMO fields; their health and the health of their children is at risk from long term pesticide exposure.




more at HuffingtonPost.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Pesticide Manufacturer Targeted UC Berkeley Professor

To protect profits threatened by a lawsuit over its controversial herbicide atrazine, Syngenta Crop Protection, a major manufacturer of pesticides, launched an aggressive multimillion-dollar campaign that included hiring a detective agency to investigate scientists on a federal advisory panel, looking into the personal life of a judge, and commissioning a psychological profile of a leading UC Berkeley scientist who has been critical of atrazine.

The Switzerland-based company also routinely paid "third-party allies" to appear to be independent supporters, and kept a list of 130 people and groups it could recruit as experts without disclosing ties to the company.


more at eastbayexpress.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Cenk on climate change 'Remember who lied to you' - mirror

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 583. cyclonebuster:



Snowlover123 any cause for alarm that we are still way below the 1979-2012 mean volume?



Also the volume trend chart is still looking horrendous....




...


I'm personally not that alarmed by it. I'm sure most here will disagree with me, but there is actually some pretty solid evidence that a pretty large fraction of the recent temperature change in the Arctic is cyclical.



We can see this with Detrended Arctic and Antarctic temperatures. This is the bi-polar "see-saw" over the 20th-Century. When one pole warms, the other one cools over multidecadal periods. The Arctic generally shows more variability than the Antarctic in the dataset.

From Chylek et al. 2010.

These periods generally correlate with the PDO/AMO.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Church Dropping Fossil Fuel Investments

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 3, 2013

The United Church of Christ has become the first American religious body to vote to divest its pension funds and investments from fossil fuel companies because of climate change concerns. The Protestant denomination, which traces its origins to the Pilgrims in 1620 and has about 1.1 million members, voted on Monday to divest in stages over the next five years. But it left open the possibility of keeping some investments if the fossil fuel companies meet certain standards. The Rev. Jim Antal, who is president of the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ and who helped lead the divestment campaign, said it was motivated by the 350.org climate change campaign, which is also urging colleges and universities to divest from fossil fuel companies.

Source
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
New research: Louisiana coast faces highest rate of sea-level rise worldwide 2/21/2013

Stunning new data not yet publicly released shows Louisiana losing its battle with rising seas much more quickly than even the most pessimistic studies have predicted to date.

While state officials continue to argue over restoration projects to save the state’s sinking, crumbling coast, top researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have concluded that Louisiana is in line for the highest rate of sea-level rise “on the planet.” * Indeed, the water is rising so fast that some coastal restoration projects could be obsolete before they are completed, the officials said.

NOAA’s Tim Osborn,** an 18-year veteran of Louisiana coastal surveys, and Steve Gill, senior scientist at the agency’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, spelled out the grim reality in interviews with The Lens. When new data on the rate of coastal subsidence is married with updated projections of sea-level rise, the southeast corner of Louisiana looks likely to be under at least 4.3 feet of gulf water by the end of the century.

Port Fourchon experienced serious flooding from Hurricane Ike, which made landfall in Galveston, Texas in 2008. Scientists say such flooding will become more common, even in smaller storms, as the coast sinks and sea level rises.

That rate could swamp projects in the state’s current coastal Master Plan, which incorporated worst-case scenarios for relative sea-level rise calculated two years ago— which the new figures now make out-of-date.


more at TheLensNOLA.org

Louisiana Climate Denier Caucus ThinkProgress.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 582. Neapolitan:
It's pretty obvious that PIOMAS volume, which is a little higher right now than it's been for a few years at this time, isn't higher due to thicker ice at the middle, bur rather later-melting ice at the fringes. And since those fringes melt out ever year anyway, and since approximately the same amount of ice volume has been lost every year (roughly 16.7 thousand km3), and since 2013's maximum was the lowest on record, I'd say there's a good chance at a new record minimum this year. Put me down for just under 3,000 km3...

PIOMAS

The year with the least volume lost from Jun 30 onward was--drum roll--2012. That's because so much of that fringe ice was gone by July 1, which is not the case this year. FWIW, the year with the greatest volume lost from Jun 30 onward was 1981; if 2013 followed that year's behavior from here onward, this year's minimum would be 1.685 thousand km2


Yep we must remember there is a total volume in a given area except for when we get to ZERO area at that point we will also have ZERO volume.... It does make sense since we do have a bigger area at this point then last year that we should also have a larger volume... Lets see what the next 2 months bring us...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219

Viewing: 634 - 584

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.