Why "Climategate" doesn't matter

Despite the recent brouhaha over emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that put Al Gore and his team of Nobelers into hot water, "nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame," according to an article in the February 2010 issue of Scientific American.

In other words, claims that client science is far from settled, that "tricks" (more on that below) were used and that researchers hid data that didn't support their argument are all bogus - bugbears created by denialists to ignore the obvious.

Here's why (all quotes from the SciAm article and are in green):

1). "Heat-trapping effects can be verified by any undergraduate in any lab," notes climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe of of Texas Tech University. "The detection of climate change, and its attribution to human causes, rests on numerous lines of evidence." [These] include melting ice sheets, rising sea levels and earlier onset of spring, not to mention higher average global temperatures.

2). Some of the kerfluffle rests on a mis-reading of the emails wording. For example, "trick" in one message actually describes a decision to use observed temperatures rather than stand-in data inferred from tree rings. Instead of implying deception, the word itself in science often refers to a strategy to solve a problem. (This is the part that the Limbaugh cronies jumped on - "They're trying to trick us!" Only problem is, they didn't understand what the word meant in scientific jargon and used this ignorance to fuel what turned out to be a misinformed, imaginary fire. Sur-prise, sur-prise, sur-prise.)

3). "Even if the CRU data "were dismissed as tainted, it would not matter," argues IPPC (UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) contributor Gary Yohe of Weslayan University. "CRU is but one source of analysis whose conclusions have been validated by other researchers around the world." Other sources include NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climate Data Center, and even the IPCC, all of which provide access to raw data. In other words, twisting one set of findings that don't even say what some claim they do does not invalidate the findings of other, highly trustworthy sources. (Not trustworthy, you say? How many lies, distortions and half-truths do Limbaugh, Beck and their ilk pass off as "facts" in a given week? If you trust any of those people, you probably can't count that high.)

The one thing the whole debacle (perhaps too strong of a word - let's stick with kerfluffle, it's cuter and not as ominous) has shown is the sociological and political sides of science.

"This is a record of how science is actually done," notes Goddard's Gavin A. Schmidt. Historians will see "that scientists are human and how science progresses despite human failings. They'll see why science as an enterprise works despite the fact that scientists aren't perfect."

"Science has already played its role" in the climate debate, explains Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC. After all, IPCC authors had to achieve consensus with more than 190 countries as well as publicly respond to each comment on the draft documents. "Unfortunately, the [climate] negotiations are becoming solely political," Pachauri laments.

So once again, it's down to politics and blatant ignorance in the face of facts vs. politics and science. I'll take science for the win and that's my final answer.

Copenhagen: So what actually happened?

Well, the Copenhagen conference on climate change ended on Saturday and it seems all that was really accomplished was an agreement to meet and discuss things further.

Read the Reuters story here.

It's hard to say how much the Gore number fakery debacle affected the outcome of the meetings at Copenhagen, but at least everyone there agreed that global warming is indeed a reality and something needs to be done.

There was a tentative agreement to limit warming to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial era, but how is anybody's guess.

It seems like everyone just decided to talk more in Mexico, where the 2010 conference will be held. I don't want to disrespect anyone and I realize that this is a situation that affects everyone in subtly different ways (like the third world - economically, they need to develop but most of the tech they can afford is polluting) but I don't understand how Ban Ki-Moon can even call this "an important beginning."

Although I guess that many member nations of the UN agreeing on something just might be a start.

The Daily Show exposes skeptics' math

OK, so Gore's scientists tweaked some numbers.

A). They are not the only scientists researching the disastrous phenomenon.

B). Let's examine the math of the denialists:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Gretchen Carlson Dumbs Down
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Oh, and Gretchen Carlson's hypocrisy and downright insulting disingenuousness.

Please sign these petitions

The right wing is working to support dirty, antiquated energy policies. Among them are Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh who have joined forces with ExxonMobil and other obstructionists to fight meaningful climate warming legislation.



Urge your Senators to resist the obstructionists and pass a strong global warming bill.

The U.S. House has already done its part and passed a bill that would set a legal limit on America's global warming pollution. Now it's the Senate's turn.

But the right wing has millions in dirty money, and with America's clean energy future at stake, we need your help.

Don't let Palin and Limbaugh bring back the "Drill-Baby-Drill" mantra. Send a letter to your Senators urging them to support the strongest possible global warming bill.

Thanks for taking action!

The link above shows many listings for climate petitions sign one or all of them, PLEASE! You may need to register first, and you will be informed of many important progressive petitions and news stories. It is not spam!

Company information below:

Care2.com, Inc.
275 Shoreline Drive, Suite 300
Redwood City, CA 94065

Sorting out soot

Common soot from things such as cooking fires is one of the main culprits of climate change. Fortunately, it is also very easily combated.

In the September issue of Discover magazine, the subject of soot is dissected by Peter Fairley.

You see, CO2 is not the only bad guy when it come to ice loss. Common soot, aka black carbon is doing its fair share of damage. It comes from engines, power plants and forest/field clearing as well as the aforementioned open cookstoves of developing countries.

Unlike light-colored sulfates produced by combustion that reflect sunlight and therefore help cool somewhat, soot is is black, settles and absorbs sunlight, heating it and melting any ice it is resting upon.

(Here's where I say to the denialists: "Now tell me humans have nothing to do with rising temperatures and the shrinking of our planet's ice shields." Read on.)

Although sulfates do lend themselves to cooling, measures enacted in the 1970s to combat acid rain have minimized this effect. Worse, when soot and sulfates combine in the atmosphere, they absorb sunlight and enhance the warming effect.

Soot primarily affects the northern hemisphere; the ramifications in Antarctica are negligible because there are almost no major population centers anywhere near it (ahem, denialists?)

It is a different story in the Arctic, however. As the ice cap shrinks, more ships can sail through the waters, adding more soot and shrinking the ice cap further in a positive feedback loop (nothing positive about that). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts that the Arctic could contain year-round shipping lanes by 2030.

"Then again," according to the article, "by 2030 soot emissions may largely be a thing of the past. Capturing soot is a lot easier than controlling carbon dioxide."

Automakers are even now phasing in "baghouse filters" that act as particle traps, cutting tailpipe emissions from diesel engines.

The positive (this time for real) impact on climate would practically occur overnight because soot has a short life span. CO2, apparently, stays in the atmosphere for quite some time. The article states that the "tiny amount of CO2 relaeased when Thomas Edison cranked up his pathbreaking Pearl Street generator in Manhattan is still circulating 127 years later (yipes! and another reason to refute Edison's so-called "genius.")

And the EPA has already stated in May that "'Eliminating black carbon can immediately slow down the loss of Arctic ice.'"

Hillary Clinton, NASA's James Hansen (the New Yorker's "catastrophist") and Al Gore have all called for immediate action against black soot and Congress is considering legislation aimed at reducing it.

This is good, VERY GOOD, news.

Or, to put it in the words of Fairley:

"In the war on climate change, tackling black carbon may be a relatively simple and powerful fix."

And hopefully one that will be free of the usual political wrangling.

The 2009 Millenium Report

A rundown courtesy of ENN:

Millennium Project Report Issued on the Future of the World

A major report issued by the United Nations Millenium Project has just been released. It finds that half the world appears vulnerable to social instability and violence due to increasing and potentially prolonged unemployment from the recession as well as several longer-term issues: decreasing water, food, and energy supplies

per person; the cumulative effects of climate change; and increasing migrations due to political, environmental, and economic conditions. It also finds some good in the global financial crisis, which may be helping humanity to move from its often selfish, self-centered adolescence to a more globally responsible adulthood.

After 13 years of the Millennium Project’s global futures research, it is increasingly clear that the world has the resources to address its challenges. Coherence and direction has been lacking. But recent meetings of the U.S. and China, as well as of NATO and Russia, and the birth of the G-20 plus the continued work of the G-8 promise to improve global strategic collaboration. It remains to be seen if this spirit of cooperation can continue and if decisions will be made on the scale necessary to really address the global challenges discussed in this report.

Major Findings include:

• The vast majority of the world is living in peace, conflicts actually decreased over the past decade, cross-cultural dialogues are flourishing, and intra-state conflicts are increasingly being settled by international interventions.

• The world is beginning to wake up to the enormity of the threat of transnational organized crime.

• Freedom House’s 2009 survey found that democracy and freedom have declined for the third year in a row, and press freedoms declined for the seventh year in a row. It estimates that only 17% of the world’s population lives in 70 countries with a free press, while 42% lives in 64 countries that have no free press.

• Although government and business leaders are beginning to respond more seriously to the global environmental situation, it continues to get worse. Each day, the oceans absorb 30 million tons of CO2, increasing their acidity. The number of dead zones—areas with too little oxygen to support life—has doubled every decade since the 1960s. The oceans are warming about 50% faster than the IPCC reported in 2007. The amount of ice flowing out of Greenland during the summer of 2008 was nearly three times more than that lost during the previous year. Arctic summer ice could be gone by 2030, as could many of the major Himalayan, European, and Andean glaciers. Over 36 million hectares of primary forest are lost every year. Human consumption is 30% larger than nature’s capacity to regenerate, and demand on the planet has more than doubled over the past 45 years. This growth continues as, for example, more cars are expected to be produced in China in 2009 than in the U.S. or Japan.

• World energy demand could nearly double by 2030, with China and India accounting for over half of the increase. China uses more coal than the U.S., EU, and Japan combined, but it now has a policy to close an old coal plant
  
  for each new cleaner burning plant that turns coal into a gas before burning it. Without major policy and technological changes, fossil fuels will meet 80% of primary energy demand by 2030. If so, then large-scale carbon capture, storage, and/or reuse should become a top priority to reduce global climate change.

• In March 2009 an asteroid missed Earth by 77,000 kilometers, 80% closer to the planet than our moon is. If it had hit Earth, it would have wiped out all life on 800 square kilometers. No one knew it was coming. The time between its discovery and close approach was very short.

• Nearly 25% of humanity is connected to the Internet. There are more people using the Internet in China than the total population of the U.S. Mobile phones are becoming handheld computers. Humanity, the built environment, and ubiquitous computing seem destined to become so interconnected that collective intelligences with “just-in-time knowledge”� will emerge for improving civilization. With an increasingly educated world and the majority of humanity connected to the Internet over the next 20 years, new forms of political power may emerge, growing beyond the control of traditional hierarchical structures.

• The world’s population is 6.8 billion. It is expected to grow to 9.2 billion by 2050, but it could shrink by 2100, creating a world with many elderly people. Nearly all the population increases will be in developing countries; hence, today’s first world will be tomorrow’s elderly world.

• Infectious diseases are the second leading cause of death worldwide. About half the people in the world are at risk of several endemic diseases. More than 42 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and 74% of these infected people live in sub-Saharan Africa. For the first time in 40 years, WHO declared a pandemic: the H1N1 influenza (swine flu) rapidly infected 60,000 people in nearly half the countries of the world, resulting in 263 deaths between April and June 2009.

The Millennium Project also explored future possible outcomes using its Real-Time Delphi online software. The RTD is a relatively new and efficient method for collecting and synthesizing expert opinions. According to the report, the value of futures research is less in forecasting accuracy than in focusing attention, planning, and opening minds to consider new possibilities and in changing the policy agenda. The goal is not to know the future precisely (how could that be possible?) but to understand a range of possibilities that lead to better decisions.

For More on this important report: http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/sof2009.html

EU, US take measures to protect ecomonies from threats of non-emission stadard bearing developing countries

From Environmental News:

European nations are wary about a perceived trend in France and the United States to use international competition as a reason to back off on Carbon reduction pledges. They are concerned that carbon tariffs could be used to fend off competition from countries which have not committed to reducing emissions, in effect triggering a green trade war.

So far, France has been the only European Union member state to openly rally for the introduction of border measures to secure the competitiveness of European industry against emerging economies. It put the measure on the table in 2008 when the EU was immersed in discussions on a revision of its emissions trading scheme (EU ETS).

Since agreement was reached on the EU revised directive in December 2008, carbon tariffs largely disappeared from debates until the US floated the idea in a draft climate bill. In the EU, meanwhile, France is having difficulty finding allies to rally around the cause.

The EU is dealing with the competitiveness issue differently. It is granting free emissions "permits" to industries which might be tempted to relocate to areas with less stringent regulations, an effect dubbed 'carbon leakage'.

In a measure opposed by President Obama, the US House of Representatives inserted a provision in its draft climate bill that allows the US to impose a 'border adjustment' after 2020 on certain products from countries which do not limit their global warming emissions. The move was seen as a pre-emptive measure to tackle American firms' loss of competitiveness in the face of cheaper products flooding from countries without a carbon premium.

Obama has said: "At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals".

Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also criticised the draft legislation, warning that it would allow developing countries to tax US exports in return.

As EU environment ministers met informally last week to discuss Europe's position for international negotiations, the Swedish EU Presidency warned that hints of protective measures would block progress towards a global deal, which it said was already too slow.